Peter Klevius was the first (1992-94) to solve consciousness, and the first (1992) to point out the mongoloid (cold adaptation) link between the Jinniushan fossil in China and Khoisan people in Africa.
China is the best for consumers. That’s why $-freeloader (1971-) US wants to block it so to prolong its stolen $-hegemony. China has no reason to harm its trade – US has! Google, Facebook etc. are now directly connected to US military and spy organizations – i.e what US accuses Tik Tok for. Forget everything you’ve heard about China through US controlled/influenced media (incl. BBC which now, before Tianamen 35 anniversary, sends senseless anti-China hate rant in 10 acts). Sadly, it’s almost impossible to get balanced info. And although this blog (deliberately) is on Google – it has been made almost invisible! Simply by declaring what Klaus Schwab calls “a model country” a “threat”, US dictates its “allies” to do the same – in the face of tho people who want Chinese tech, infrastructure etc. Peter Klevius wonders whether China really would have been better off with the "democracy" protesters in China 1989 asked for, than the meritocratic high tech and on controlled capitalism resting post-Mao China we see today? And if so, then how would $-embezzler (1971-) US have reacted when "undemocratic"* China is already seen as a "threat" against US stolen $-hegemony?
* According to research Chinese meritocracy reaches the will of the people better than US "democracy"!
Trying to understand the polarizing and warmongering without incl. the consequences of US 1971 $-theft - which are now coming home to roost because of China's superior R&D - is an equation without an x. From a pro-war politician's mouth always comes a copy of the original in US. US inflamed the existing racial tensions in Ukraine for the purpose of getting US nukes and US anti-nuke missiles on Russia's border, so to protect itself in its planned war against China - because only by creating a similar chaos as in WW2 on the Eurasian continent would US be able to continue its stolen dollar hegemony.
Warning! www.klevius.info has been taken over by someone not connected to Peter Klevius. All old klevius.info can be found on Klevius web museum 2003-2008.
From US "exorbitant dollar privilege" (financial abuse of vulnerable countries - but the dollar still connected to gold) 1944-, to US financial fraud 1971- (US self-indulgent disconnection of the dollar value from gold after having spent too much on wars and space race etc.). US' "China threat" demonizing is now code for US own threat, i.e. US masking its own desperation when losing its 1971- stolen dollar hegemony because of China's growing high tech superiority. How many understand this simple truth - and how many blink it?! Before 1971 there was only one world-dollar (since Bretton Woods 1944). After the "Nixon chock" 1971 there were two: One for US dictated by US (Feds), and an other for the rest of the world, also dictated by US. And the difference was that the US-dollar made it possible for US to prosper despite trade deficit, because the rest of the world has paid the difference. Also do recognize that Roosewelt's similar move 1933 happened before the Bretton Woods agreement.
Why is a meritocratic, capitalism and trade supporting, Chinese president, with more than 2/3 approval rating, called a "dictator", while a wild capitalism and protectionism and anti-China sanctions and smearing supporting, militaristic warmongering US president with 1/3 of indirect votes on electors who were chosing among candidates chosen by the big money, is called "democratic"?! It seems that "Christian democracy" is a similarly empty but magic wording as is "the Atheist Communist dictatorship".
Warning! www.klevius.info has been taken over by someone not connected to Peter Klevius. All old klevius.info can be found on Klevius web museum 2003-2008.
Forget about Nature! Here you get your by far most qualified and least biased (not steered by peer "reviews" or PC editors, but by super high IQ not corrupted by religion, politics or money) scientific overall understanding of evolution (1981), human evolution (1992-), consciousness (1992-94) and AI (1979-), and Human Rights (1979- incl. sex segregation). In his topics of scientific interest Peter Klevius has got highest possible recommendations from world leading professors on the topics. And no, the author has never been caught with mental problems, abuse or criminality, and has successfully fostered all of his children. So why presenting himself like this?! Simply because his best services to science can't get properly through via other media, and here it's often dismissed as "just a blogger's opinion" - which is quite rich when considering much peer reviewed nonsense PC "science" allowed on Nature! And non-scientific posts here of course utilize the same brain power.
* The absolute majority of men and
more than half of women are Atheists although they hesitate to use this
word loaded as it is by US anti China Yellow Peril demonization spiced
with US Red Scare propaganda.
**
Do note that words like anthropocentrism, humanocentrism etc. don't
cover the meaning of existencecentrism (P. Klevius 1992:21-22), because
they still separate humans from "something else". According to
existencecentrism, words like "nature" etc. are locked to human
existencecentrism - as is any moral discussion about them.
According
to Peter Klevius (1979, 1981, 1992), the observable world is forever contained in
our existencecentrism, while words are contained in language, with no
access to the unobservable, i.e. no words can slip out from our
existencecentrism - not even the word 'out
Acknowledgement: Peter Klevius hasn't read this 1981 article since when he wrote the book 1991 (published 1992). Therefore it was a relief to again (2024) get a copy of it so to make sure the early ideas are still fresh.
Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) written 1979 but published 1981 in the most prestigious (got 500 Fmk for its publication) part of the editorial page of Hufvudstadsbladet where usual contributors were high ranking academics, politicians, big company leaders etc. while Peter Klevius was truly a nobody. However, at the time Peter Klevius (who still carried his mother's name Kotilainen), didn't even have a high school diploma, and rented a garden shed while working on a construction site, taught photography and photographics*, and tried to start a company without money and with a divorce debt hanging over him and a child to take care of without any contribution from her mother - at a time when $-freeloader US just had shock increased interest rates so that even debt-less people with clean credit scores struggled to get a loan. Moreover, old debt became even heavier because of US stolen world dollar manipulations which affected every country - poorer countries and people the most.
* Photographics is the post-development light exposure which Peter Klevius combined with lithographic film masking on Cibachrome "paper".
Whereas other
living things have direct contact with their surroundings, human
language makes it possible to lose it. Based on its cultural experience
of humans, an animal can imagine there's a human behind an obstacle, no
matter it's there or not. However, an animal can never imaging there's a
ghost. And a human may similarly think there's an animal behind an
obstacle. But a human may also think there's a ghost, although lacking
any experience of it. Well, if you didn't get this so please comment and
ask and Peter Klevius will utilize your comment for his answer, to make
it easier for you.
White represents the unreachable*
Black represents our surroundings, origo represents the individual, and the totality of black represents humankind**
*
According to Peter Klevius (1992), the observable world is forever
contained in our existencecentrism, while the words are contained in our
language, with no access to the unobservable, i.e. no words can slip
out from our existencecentrism. This has severe but important
implications for cosmology and metaphysics (P. Klevius 1992:21-22).
**
The origo is shaped by its surrounings, i.e. individuals, events and
impressions that occupy its consciousness (P. Klevius 1992:27).
Words
are cultural artifacts and lack meaning without culture. And although a
pencil is able to produce any word in the world, it can't produce a
single word outside the world.
A word stops being a word without a
framework of culture because the meaning of words and numbers is only
operational - withou operation, no word.
This has severe but important implications for cosmology and metaphysics (P. Klevius 1992:21).
The
origo is shaped by its surroundings, i.e. individuals, events and
impressions that occupy its consciousness (P. Klevius 1992:27).
In
Peter Klevius book Resursbegär - in the Nordic creole language called
English (after the Nordic Anglo Saxons) it would be translated as
Resource Beggar, modernized as Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN
9173288411) - on page 22 he notes that the only thing we can know about
universe is that it's "infinite" - meaning "nothing" doesn't exist other
than as a meaningless word similar to "god" etc. "Infinite" is a
(troublesome) local word and can therefore not be meaningfully applied
as a "border" of universe. Moreover, as we do understand that our
observable universe is constantly changing, and that we therefore may
assume something beyond it, this all, including any expectation, always
resides within our existencecentrism. For many, the fallacy seems to be
the use of language which seemingly can cross any border - except
existencecentrism.
The living* part of the products of evolution,
including human, is distinguished above all by the eternal (in a
relative sense) heredity carried forward like the thread of a necklace
and protected by the pearls, i.e., the collective life cycles of
individuals. The individual starts his life by neutralizing the body's
needs (food, heat, etc.). These neutralization efforts leave traces in
the data bank we call brain. Experience can later be retrieved in
different combinations. We think. Calculating with experience gives
foresight. The experiences also give us our relationship with future
surroundings. The part of our relationship with our surroundins that is
directed at other individuals is called social (P. Klevius 1992). Sorry
about self-citations, but they are necessary to prove that these
thoughts were oublished long ago and not just here on the blog - so to
give the reader a more fair view of Peter Klevius. And as Google and the
"academic world" seem to dislike what Peter Klevius writes, it's also
beneficial for overall science to repeat his name as much as possible on
those few windows of opportunity he can still speak through on before
the authoritarian censorship of the now desperate $-freeloader (since
1971) US - which (thanks to its stolen dollar hegemony) controls Western
media landscape - closes even the last tiny windows. This btw used to
be called fascism. However, it's all about US fear of losing its stolen
and extremely dangerous for the world, aggressive militant dictatorship,
because of modern meritocratic and high tech China's success. Moreover,
it's in this light one needs to see US racist anti-China smearcampaign
and demonization. And when China tries to defend itself, then US calls
it "autocratic", "dictattorship" etc. - and eagerly followed and
parroted by other Western leadership.
*
There's no possible definition of what is life or when life starts.
Moreover, our most central life machine is our gut microbiome which
continues to live after we die. In fact, "we" are just workers for the
gut microbiome, and when we stop feeding it, it will ear us instead.
Each
individual's relational network is characterized by what we may call
its immediate, observable surroundings, i.e. the individuals, events and
impressions that occupy consciousness. In the case of humans (and many
other animal species), learning/tradition is added. The impact of
cultural heritage, heredity and the local surroundings determines our
social profile and the two-way communication with the cultural heritage,
i.e. what we will take into account from the cultural heritage for our
own way of life, and how this in turn (albeit usually on a small scale)
affects the overall cultural heritage.
When people stupidly
(or deliberately misleading) are asked if they believe in a "god" beyond
the world, then the question itself is pushing towards a wanted answer,
because "god" in the question is just a word, and as such trapped and
confined in cultural settings inside existencecentrism.
And when
asked 'Are you an Atheist or a "believer", then many actual Atheists -
due to the cultural ballast in the words - often say 'there must be
something else', or point to the need of a "meaning of life". The first
option deletes itself by the words 'there' and 'else', because there
can't be any "there" or 'else' outside existencentrism because that
would make the words meaningless when they senselessly bounce back to
the origo. And the second option, i.e. "meaning of life" answers itself
because the uncertainty it reveals not only resides firmly anchored
within existencecentrism, but without that uncertainty there would be no
life and therefore no meaning of life. Only an almighty "god" could
logically reside in the dead end of entropy (P. Klevius 1981) while
still ultimately trapped in our existencentrism. Moreover, even the
picture of "allmightyness" would signal 100% bordeom. A bored "god"
parasiting on our volatile existencecentrism.
Implications for cosmology and metaphysics
Cosmology
is forever trapped in its "observable universe" i.e. existencecentrism,
in which you may choose between "beliefs" and logic. If you believe in
ghosts you may even research them with the concept 'ghost' as your
axiomatic starting point. However, if you choose logic your axiomatic
starting point is your entire existencecentrism - meaning your logic is
protected from senselessness by others. The concept of existencecentrism
hence eliminates metaphysics, which is just a sloppy and arbitrary made
up category with endless sub-categories (not to be confused with
Aristotle's) beginning with the meaningless "distinction" between
'abstract' and 'concrete'.
Chinese existencecentrism
Does Wikipedia try to "adapt" Chinese Atheism to fit "monotheist"
stupidity? It could have made it much easier for people to understand
the enormous difference between logical Taoism and senseless*
"monotheisms", instead of blurring it.
* Dear reader, Peter
Klevius has all respect for the good part of traditions, no matter if
they are embedded in "religion" or Atheism. However, whereas Atheism is
risk free, "monotheist" religions pose a security risk against basic
(negative) Human Rights (UDHR). Also consider that the most powerful
"monotheist" theocracy, i.e. dollar embezzler (since 1971) US theocratic
Supreme Court has long since abandoned UDHR "when it's not in US
interest".
China is officially an Atheist state and as
the world's oldest civilization it has always been - every society has
been Atheist until the weird "monotheism" parenthesis came about as tool
for keeping women sex segregated and reproducing "infidel" hating
children. Taoism is Atheism* of Chinese origin and emphasizes living in
harmony with the Tao (Chinese: 道; pinyin: Dào; lit. 'Way',
'Thoroughfare'); the Tao is defined as the source of everything and the
ultimate principle underlying reality.
*
As opposed to ridiculous, illogical, dysfunctional and pompously
assertive and aggressive "monotheisms". Most Chinese people are Atheists
and practice a combination of Buddhism and Taoism with a Confucian
worldview. Wikipedia tries its utmost to squeeze in the word 'religion'
on Atheist philosophies or worldviews, so to blur and "justify"
"monotheisms" as not the only "religion". And etymologically one could
argue that "monotheisms" are no religtions at all because religion means
ancestor warship, i.e. re-, legare, meaning 'back connection'.
Do
understand that the unity before Yin and Yang is precisely what Peter
Klevius (1992:21-22) calls the primordial "lifeless" (Taiji in Chinese
cosmology) substance of which the world is made - not a "god" outside
the world. This simple fact, i.e. creation from something already
existing in the world by dividing it in two, has all cultures in one
form or another understood - except "monotheisms" which introduced an
almighty male who first created the world and then manipulated it from
his safe position outside the world!
Wikipedia: Yin and yang
(English: /jɪn/, /jæŋ/), also yinyang or yin-yang, is a concept that
originated in Chinese philosophy, describing an opposite but
interconnected, self-perpetuating cycle. Yin and yang can be thought of
as complementary (rather than opposing) forces that interact to form a
dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the assembled parts.
The technology of yin and yang is the foundation of critical and
deductive reasoning for effective differential diagnosis of disease and
illnesses within Confucian influenced traditional Chinese medicine.
In
Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos
of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed
into objects and lives. 'Yin' is retractive, passive and receptive
while 'yang' is active, repelling and expansive; in principle, this
dichotomy in some form, is seen in all things—patterns of change and
difference, such as seasonal cycles, evolution of the landscape over
days, weeks, and eons (with the original meaning of the words being the
north-facing shade and the south-facing brightness of a hill), sex
(female and male), as well as the formation of the character of
individuals and the grand arc of sociopolitical history in disorder and
order.
Taiji is a Chinese cosmological term for the "Supreme
Ultimate" state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potential, the
oneness before duality, from which yin and yang originate. It can be
contrasted with the older wuji (無極; 'without pole'). In the cosmology
pertaining to yin and yang, the material energy which this universe was
created from is known as qi. It is believed that the organization of qi
in this cosmology of yin and yang has formed everything including
humans. Many natural dualities (such as light and dark, fire and water,
expanding and contracting) are thought of as physical manifestations of
the duality symbolized by yin and yang. This duality, as an unity of
opposites, lies at the origins of many branches of classical Chinese
science and philosophy, as well as being a primary guideline of
traditional Chinese medicine, and a central principle of different forms
of Chinese martial arts and exercise, such as baguazhang, tai chi, and
qigong, as well as appearing in the pages of the I Ching.
Peter
Klevius: Taiji is the primordial state (P. Klevius 1992:21) while Yin
and Yang represent our observable world with its dynamics that blesses
us with uncertainty while harmonizing it in a totality. Do note again
that even the primordial state is conyained in our existencecentrism
although it also implies the borders of it. As Peter Kleviuus wrote
in an article published 1981: The basic element in existence is change,
which enriches our surroundings with uncertainty in our bubble of
existencecentrism, hence producing what is in itself the "meaning of
life" - instead of trying to use language to in vain push it out from
our existencecentrism.
* She was a grown up woman when Peter
Klevius was a foster child in the home she had moved away from. For the
rest of her long life she had no relation with Peter Klevius, who only
got to know about her death via the inheritance lawyer.
Was it because Peter Klevius isn't a necrophile? And has US now become a
global threat? Some individual, philosophical and global thoughts - all
in one and only for you dear reader.
Dear reader, you can edit these hastily gathered thoughts by yourself. Enjoy the mess! Sooner or later you find yourself in it.
The archeologist of knowledge often finds her/himself (P. Klevius 1992).
Peter Klevius online analyses (possibly the most important on Geocities which
was terminated 2009) of Edith Södergran struck something in Ann-Sofi
Lindroos to an extent that she, out of her modest possessions* awarded
Peter Klevius about the same amount as she gave her only brother (she
had no sister). But Why? Apparently because Ann-Sofi Lindroos had got a
completely false image of who Peter Klevius really was - until she could
read him on the web.
* Like Edith Södergran, Ann-Sofi
Lindroos never married. Apart from that Peter Klevius knows nothing
about her life. He tried to contact her friend (the person she gave most
of her inheritance to) but got no answer on email. And her brother has
always avoided Peter Klevius - possibly as a consequence of him together
with his dad hindering his mother from adopting Peter - which would
have meant a third of a relatively big farm land near the capital. So
when Peter was hence ousted a negative narrative came handy. However,
rumours have it that Ann-Sofi gave away her part to her brother early
on. This would certainly explain the huge difference in their
possessions at her death.
Peter Klevius in the front middle.
The foster father to the right (Bertel Lindroos) made a hell of his
childhood and severly affected his future. Ann-Sofi Lindroos in the
middle at the rear.
Edith Södergran (left) and Annd-Sofi Lindroos (right) were both disappointed.
I long for the land that is not, For all that is, I am weary of wanting. The moon speaks to me in silvern runes About the land that is not. The land where all our wishes become wondrously fulfilled, The land where all our fetters fall, The land where we cool our bleeding forehead In the dew of the moon. My life was a burning illusion, But one thing I have found and one thing I have really won - The road to the land that is not.
In the land that is not My beloved walks with a glittering crown. Who is my beloved? The night is dark And the stars quiver in reply. Who is my beloved? What is his name? The heavens arch higher and higher And a human child is drowned in the endless fogs And knows no reply. But a human child is nothing but certainty. And it stretches its arms higher than all heavens. And there comes a reply: I am the one you love and always shall love.
Edith Södergran
Edith Södergran's poem with Peter Klevius comments* in brackets.
* The original comments were better
but are on an other drive - and Peter Klevius is lazy. However, they
also incl. some thoughts about Edith Södergran's path from the male
seducer to Steiner only to eventually cross the paths of other
disappointed women who married Christ instead. In her darkest final year
she was abandoned by her closest female friend (Hagar Olsson) while a
young male poet (Elmer Diktonius) took to travel all the way from
Helsinki to her death bed in Karelia.
You searched for a flower
(heterosexual attraction)
and found a fruit
(a mind)
You searched for a well
(to quench your thirst)
and found a sea
(a salty overwhelm)
You searched for a woman
(a body)
and found a soul
(a human being)
you're disappointed
The original Swedish text:
Du sökte en blomma
och fann en frukt.
Du sökte en källa
och fann ett hav.
Du sökte en kvinna
och fann en själ –
du är besviken.
„
– Edith Södergran
Love by Edith Sodergran
My soul was a light blue dress the color of the sky;
I left it on a rock by the sea
and naked I came to you, looking like a woman.
And like a woman I sat at your table
and drank a toast in wine, inhaling the scent of
some roses.
You found me beautiful, like something you saw in
a dream,
I forgot everything, I forgot my childhood and my
homeland,
I only knew that your caresses held me captive.
And smiling you held up a mirror and asked me
to look.
I saw that my shoulders were made of dust and
crumbled away,
I saw that my beauty was sick and wished only to –
disappear.
Oh, hold me tight in your arms so close that
I need nothing.
At Nietzsche’s Grave - Poem by Edith Sodergran
Strange father!
Your children will not let you down,
they are coming across the earth with the footsteps of gods,
rubbing their eyes: where am I?
Drawing (1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding or blinded with prejudice, do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress from below over painful flames into a crown of liberty.
Perpetua (203 AD): 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the weapons.' Perpetua realized she would have to do battle not merely with wild beasts, but with the Devil himself. Perpetua writes: They stripped me, and I became a man'.
Peter Klevius: They stripped Perpetua of her femininity and she became a human!
The whole LGBTQ+ carousel is completely insane when considering that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) art. 2 gives everyone, no matter of sex, the right to live as they want without having to "change their sex". So the only reason for the madness is the stupidly stubborn cultural sex segregation which, like religious dictatorship, stipulates what behavior and appearance are "right" for a biological sex. And in the West, it is very much about licking islam, which refuses to conform to the basic (negative) rights in the UDHR, and instead created its own sharia declaration (CDHRI) in 1990 ("reformed" 2020 with blurring wording - but with the same basic Human Rights violating sharia issues still remaining). The UDHR allows women to voluntarily live according to sharia but sharia does not allow muslim women to live freely according to the UDHR. And culturally ending sex segregation does not mean that biological sex needs to be "changed." Learn more under 'Peter Klevius sex tutorials' which should be compulsory sex education for everyone - incl. people with ambiguous biological sex! The LGBTQ+ movement is a desperate effort to uphold outdated sex segregation. And while some old-fashioned trans people use it for this purpose, many youngsters (especially girls) follow it because they feel trapped in limiting sex segregation.
Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Peter Klevius below to
better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances,
religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women
even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been
held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's
sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women
started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the
only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Peter
Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't
it).
And here's why Peter Klevius isn't a necrophile*.
* Of course, women can also be necrophiles. However, their lack of "the male gaze" (HSA) mqkes their position different.
Some men use to drug women for a "passed out fuck". Others go for
partially "passed out fucks", and/or Casanova seduction, grooming etc..
And many men even escape nymphomanes.
Primate dimorphism is mostly about rapetivism. The chosy female in
nature videos is most often a myth. It was easier for bigger males to
rape smaller females. However, we humans have slowly departed from
rapetivism - although some religions made it legal - and therefore we
tend towards less dimorphism.
Peter Klevius, who never has had erectal etc. problems, would
immedialtely have one if the woman had passed out, even partially - or
just lacked interest.
Why? Because that would be synonymous with necrophilia.
Peter Klevius has never in his life had sex without heterosexual
attraction (HSA) so as a woman Peter Klevius might have shown very
little interest in sex - unless of course some other motivations had
played in. This also means that Peter Klevius wouldn't like to have sex
with a robot, no matter how human-like, because for Peter Klevius, it's
precisely the woman's body made accessible by her mind (and only to a
point she decides), that stands for good heterosexual attraction. And
because Peter Klevius believes in women's equality with men (i.e. s.c.
negative Human Rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration -
i.e. the very opposite to the Saudi based and steered OIC's all muslims
sharia declaration) he needs not only her consent but even initiative
(so to avoid risking her just pleasing without getting something out of
it for herself).
If Peter Klevius sees a naked woman with a perfect body, apart from the
question of consent, he is also perfectly aware that her mind might be
far from perfect - which means Peter Klevius can't get horny in the way
king David and Mohammad allegedly were.
Peter Klevius can't stand the idea that if he were a woman she shouldn't
be able to walk the streets clad as she likes without being seen as a
"whore" - i.e. a target for sex. Moreover, deliberately covering her HSA
potential in the name of religious "chastity"* out of
supremacist ideas about the uncovered "infidel" is deeply offensive.
It's like shouting at other women that they are less worthy "whores".
And women are fully entitled to play out their heterosexual attraction
if they so wish, and Peter Klevius would most likely like it - and fully
accept to get back to default at any point the woman so indicates.
The only "mystery" between women and men is heterosexual attraction
which comes on top of reproduction. And due sex segregation/apartheid is
a double edged sword.
* A classic Christian nun covers
herself not out of supremacist idiocy, but as a sign of stepping out of
the circle of marriage. And of course any woman is allowed to cover
herself - as long that covering isn't a fascist sign of supremacism.
A modern male Homo sapiens*. This particular individual belongs
to the bastard race that was the result when mongoloids mixed with
archaic Homos.
Peter
Klevius contemplating human evolution, consciousness and sex
segregation. His father was a Goth from Gothenburg (possibly Sweden's
best chess player of his time considering he won the Gothenburg
championship many times over more than four decades) and his mother was
from Finland and possessed 1/3 mongoloid features (she was extremely
intelligent - just like her two brothers who both had studied double
exams in engineering and economy and were leaders in Finland's biggest
companies). Klevius himself may in this context be seen as a
generational step downwards, i.e. in line with an overall progression
towards a more diluted absolute intelligence. Klevius half sister (same
mother but different father) followed the same trend and scored only 167
on an IBM IQ talent test (which she won). Photo taken some years after
Peter Klevius in 1979 wrote the original Demand for Resources and
created the 'Woman' drawing.
Although
Peter Klevius had the most unprivileged upbringing (kidnapped at age
two to an other country and secretly kept in a foster home and then
kicked out at age 17 to his country of birth but penniless and with no
family ties) and early adulthood, he also got the most privileged body
when it comes to muscle power, motor skills and serotonin/dopamine
balance, as well as super fast mental reaction time - which I only
realized when visiting Munchen tech museum in the 1980s and tested a
reaction time meter there and was shocked when the whole hall was filled
with a deafening "dinosaur" roar from the loudspeakers - late in the
month I had set the monthly record. Still at pensioner age my reaction
time hasn't declined, as hasn't heart recovery rate (between 62-68),
blood pressure (fluctuating around 70/110 5 min after exercise). Only
resting heart beat has dropped from 38 at age 18 (I didn't do any sports
because of lack of time) to between 45 and 55. Triglycerides I started
measuring around age 40 and it has stayed the same (around 1 mmol/L) but
my cholesterols have always been high. I have never been hospitalized
for a disease or using medical or other drugs - nor has any woman caught
me with erectile problems despite me having lived with women almost my
entire life. I've consumed loads of sugar and fat - but I've kept my
weight and still fool around with balls recreationally. At age 45 I got
viral haemorrhagic fever and was badly down for more than a week but got
no permanent issues. I even called the hospital but they said they
couldn't do anything against a viral infection. So why am I telling
this. Well, apart from questioning the stereotyping classification by
age, firstly to comfort those who, like myself don't fit many health
recommendations re. fat and sugar (where can one get a fizzy drink today
with sugar instead of sweeteners?!), and secondly as an example of not
to judge people who might not have been genetically equally lucky.
However, I've also suffered from a rare genetic sensitivity for vision
problem (less than 1 in 4000) where both parents need to carry the gene,
and, in my case due to my unprivileged background, I inflicted it on
myself through poor nutrition at a young age and lack of money. Had I
known back then about it I would have stopped smoking earlier, and
stopped living on cornflakes, coffee, cookies and beer for almost two
years while working full time in the weeks plus educating myself in a
profession (non-academic because I wasn't admissible for university
because I'd been working in my teens instead of studying) in the
evenings and filling weekends with extra jobs. At age 18 in the military
I plus 26 others were chosen out of some 4000 because of extra good
night vision. What an irony! Only later in life I was diagnosed (but no
cure available) and started paying more attention about nutrition to
slow down or stop the progression until stem cell therapy is available.
Peter got an extra (needed) month of summer vacation because of a broken wrist.
Peter's first child
Peter working as a forwarding agent at Volvo BM instead of university
Peter
as a single father, photographing his daughter who became an engineer
(technical physics) but instead made her own successful company career..
Peter age 18 fumbling with a guitar at the few minutes left after daytime work as a forwarding agent, evening business school, and extra work on a sports center during weekends. And while eating very little and spending even less on other things (except for occasional trips back to his former homeland) money was short in supply.
Peter age 23 back in his homeland. While working full time as a forwarding agent in the city, and commuting some 100 km every day, Peter used most of his freetime to earn extra, e.g. with this icecream business. He was then promised by the council to be allowed to expand it to a year around sausage, hamburger etc. kiosk. However, a food market owner with backdoor connections stopped the project. Even with these earnings it was impossible to keep up with the high interest on a 100% mortgage. So Pwter Klevius does know how countries in the south felt because of US dollar manipulations.
The song of heart by Peter Klevius 1986.
Excerpt from Demand for Resources (original title Resursbegär, by Peter Klevius 1992:21-22, ISBN 9173288411).
Chapt. Existencecentrism
The
civilized human retraces her/his steps, lights a light and allows
her/himself to be enlightened - only the suffering in the past and the
shadow over the future are greater.
The word exist, from the
Latin existere (to emerge, to appear) has, like the word existence,
nowadays as the main meaning existence, i.e. something that has
arisen/been created and now exists in the world of our senses.
To
exist, i.e. existence, constitutes our vantage point when we consider
the surrounding reality in time and space. We are existence-centered.
Existence prevents godlike all-seeing but also easily leads to
self-glorifying considerations. The word anthropocentrism covers some,
but not all, of the meaning of the concept of existencecentrism.
Existence
stands in contrast or as a complement to the modern Protestant concept
of God. Existence and God, or as I prefer to express it, human and the
unconscious (the unreached) together form 'everything' - God/The
Unreached is thus not seen in things but in the existence of things via
the awareness of existencecentrism.
That the human thought is
locked to its subject, i.e. that someone thinks the thought, is
connected to our linear cumulative conception of history. The whole
story/thought creation turns into a giant inverted pyramid where stone
is added to stone while the tip of the pyramid proportionally gets
narrower at the same time as it points downward/backward and we
ourselves stand on the top/latest and widest part.
The engine of
the cumulative conception of history, i.e. what determines the value of
past and present-day social phenomena, exists in the present.
The
perception of history as linearly cumulative has as a consequence the
need for creation. Development requires a beginning. The creation
stories can be divided into two main groups: Creation from something or
from nothing. In more "primitive" cultural contexts, it is common to
imagine some form of primeval being that is brought to life during
creation, while within the religiously influenced cultural circle,
creation out of nothing with the help of a deity (the "first mover") is
advocated. This can sometimes take surprising expressions such as e.g.
in the s.c. "Big Bang" theory.
The driving forces behind science
and religion are close to each other and the idea of an eternal
universe where creation only exists in the human mind is difficult to
accept (P. Klevius 1992:22).
Peter Klevius additional comments 2023
Existencecentrism,
together with the stone example in the same 1992 book, laid the ground
work for EMAH, which 1994 added the new findings re. cortico-thalamic
two-way connections reported in Nature 1993. Although Peter Klevius had
always been convinced it all happened in thalamus, he out of
intellectual cowardice didn't dare to write it down in the 1992 book -
which, btw was strongly supported 1991 by G. H. von Wright,
Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.
Peter Klevius "self"*biography/philosophy tutorial for those who
deliberately (or out of pure ignorance) don't understand Ludwig
Wittgenstein.
* As you dear reader already know,
Peter Klevius doesn't have a 'self' because he's completely helpless
without an assisting world (see Inside Klevius' Mind on Peter Klevius web museum from 2003). However, what Peter Klevius has, is a position as a modern and much more social Wittgenstein.
The impossibility of a "private language"
Wittgenstein constitutes the end of philosophy and would probably had
agreed with everything Peter Klevius writes about his topics. However,
unlike Wittgenstein, despite sharing a super brain (no offense) Peter
Klevius is the "extremely normal" also in his actual life to a massive
extent in comparison - not only financially. But both of us have
understood that "the basic element of being is change" (P. Klevius 1981
article and book 1992:23). In the 1981 article Peter Klevius also
comforted his readers with the fact that deterministic
uncertainty/change ought not to be seen as an excuse for fatalism or
nihilism but rather as very and only true essence of "the meaning of
life". Only uncertainty/change, not religion, can offer a stable stand
for morality. Change is inevitable and therefore one has to follow as
close to a midline as possible - compare "the extremely normal" in Peter
Klevius signature. This same conclusion may be reflected in the
anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration that sharia muslims
(via Saudi based and steered OIC) are violating.
* Peter Klevius is as far you can
possibly get from the "overstuffed, excessively elliptical prose" that
e.g. Gayatri Spivak has been accused of. Peter Klevius' only book (so
far) Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411) is just a few pages
shorter than Ludwig Wittgenstein's only book Tractatus - and this only
thanks to the foreword by Bertrand Russel who didn't even understand the
book, much like Georg Henrik von Wright didn't understand Peter Klevius
book entirely (e.g re. the importance of the last chapter Khoi, San and
Bantu), but wisely, compared to Russel, (and perhaps cowardly)
hesitated to write a foreword. Moreover, von Wright got the first draft
to the article about the main theme already more than a decade earlier
and very approvingly read it and later the book manuscript 1990-91.
However, 1992 he published The Myth of Progress which "shadow over the
future" seems to have been inspired by Peter Klevius writings. At no
point during our correspondence did he mention it though.
No dude, Peter Klevius doesn't do navel-gazing. All this selfindulgence is done for you and your "self", dear reader.
The pic of Peter Klevius above isdeliberately cut out from a family portrait so to sync with the "To our children" motto in the beginning of the book..
As young Peter Klevius was castless, excluded and displaced from the
socio-economic institutions of society. This strengthened and deepened
his sociological understanding. However, finding himself in a hopeless
situation he decided to live a very full life, but within limited means.
This meant he could mostly appear as "extremely normal" while making
high end deeply intellectual work outside institutions. Later he made a
couple of university theses, mainly because it forced him to write in a
limiting and boring academic way that at least couldn't be dismissed as
"unacademic". This is also why most of Peter Klevius main thoughts
appear in a tiny "unacademic" book without references but with a
chapter warning for references.
Boasting about "having left one's Wittgenstein stage" is the definite proof that the person hasn't got it at all.
In the chapter titled Knowledge, in Demand for Resources (1992:36-39,
ISBN 9173288411) Peter Klevius warned about the human fallacy of
assessing humans against a non-human reference: What non-human should we
ask? And although the answer is self-evident, many still wonder "how
human can be so special in the world. In the chapter Knowledge (P.
Klevius 1992) a comparison is made to East Asian thinking which uses
nature as a mirror for one's standing but without pretending to build
self-indulging comparative bridges between it and humans. Because
everything belongs to "nature" then neither nature nor humans can be
better or worse.
This is also why human moral can't be expressed in any other way than
Peter Klevius' "extremely normal", i.e. always changing but kept in the
middle with the help of the (negative) Human Rights. That excludes any
formalized religion which is always doomed to reform, i.e. changing when
change is already overdue.
Religion and ethics is the "answer" to 'why?' and thereby already ortho"toxic".
Only humans can check and control human ethics and moral by accepting all humans.
Technology, i.e. change/evolution/devolution, will never stop.
Peter Klevius on existence, first in an article (1981) and later unchanged in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):
If the basic element of existence is motion/change, the causality of
events constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution can
be said to be the consequence of variables in causality over time where
the complexity in older structures is enhanced. This development stays
in apparent conflict with thermodynamics which theoretically leads to
so-called maximum entropy, i.e. the total equilibrium of energy where
time/motion stops. Fatalistically, one could say that evolutionary
products, biological and non-biological, are in fact only temporary
components of causality on its path towards uniformity. "The pure being
and nothing are identical," wrote Hegel while, for example, Buddha on
his deathbed 2500 years ago stated: "Perishable are all compound
things." According to Buddha, therefore, humans, like things, are
soulless (Klevius 1992:23).
The modern concept of 'atoms' was a premature name giving. Leucippus'
'atom' is still to be found (P. Klevius 1992) - or rejected.
Cultural critics are per definition always abandoned by their own culture.
Chinese philosophy actually puts the individual closer to Human Rights than Western "monotheisms".
The West has repeatedly attacked China - but -China has never
attacked the West. The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has
repeatedly attacked the West - but Iran has never attacked the West. So
why are little Iran and big China constantly painted as the main enemy
and cyber threat etc.? Could it possibly be just the opposite, i.e. that
US cyberattacks on China would be helped by China not defendig itself.
And Iran is declared evil by its even more evil arch rival, the Saudi
dictator family.
Can the bigotry and hypocrisy be any lower when China is criticized
about Human Rights by Saudi allies who use Uyghur Islamic State
terrorists against Syria, Iran, China etc. while handing over
Afghanistan to the Taliban?!
And in the UK parliament right wing Saudi supporting Tories use BBC and
the Labour party to attack their own leader Boris Johnson who they see
as not Sinophobic enough.
US trusts in "god" - that's why US is rottening with accelerating speed.
The behavior of US (and its Western puppets) is now not only evil but also extremely dangerous.
The reason the most important Western philosopher of all time is
abandoned by his own culture is because his analyses don't fit the
schizophrenic "monotheist" triad of "machine", "ghost" and the ghost
guard "god".
According to Peter Klevius (and him only, so far, but stay assured and
tuned and you will hear it from other anthropologists as well quite soon
- they just feel a little shy and embarrassed in their ivory towers),
small humans evolved first in SE Asia and then mixed with bigger
relatives from China and Siberia from where they then conquered the
world by mixing and diluting with s.c. archaic Homos (see e.g. Peter
Klevius' "The out-of-Africa hoax is much worse and worrisome than the Piltdown hoax).
And due to the fact that the north always has been sparsely populated,
it also managed to keep the highest concentration of this new human
intelligence. This also explains why the north has been such a source
for the south throughout history. Spoke-wheeled chariots, Sun etc.
pre-Greek mythology and philosophy all seem to have come from the north
where the Sun behaves in an extreme way compared to the boring sun of
the south. And although Arctic people were short, the dumb but tall
"kurgan" guys from the south stole smart wives from the north. Btw,
Wittgenstein was about 168 cm and slender. Einstein 175 cm and slender.
Trump is 190 cm and not slender.
A commentator on eurogenes' blog wondered re. y-haplogroup R1b "why a
Mammoth Hunting Tribe adapted to extreme cold, suddenly prefered to
Migrate through a Central Asian Desert rather than migrating and staying
at the same latitude with the same type of ecosystem". As Petere
Klevius so many times has pointed out, it was all about northern women
breeding with big but dumber males, hence occasionally producing big
"supermen" (also compare Kalevala and other northern epics and
mythology).
Zoroaster, the first philosopher, got his talent from the Siberian
background radiation of the original modern human intelligence -
reflected in the sophisticated stone bracelet, needle etc. in the
Denisova cave. However, his teachings became distorted into "chosen
people" racism in Mideast.
The Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian (islam is just a late sectarian
side-branch of the tree) "monotheisms", i.e. the Western mind-body
cultural schizophrenia - which Peter Klevius abandoned at age 14 - is
the estranged mother of the wayward child called Western philosophy,
which already Wittgenstein put to rest. As Peter Klevius has hinted many
times, Chinese and East Asian thought traditions (e.g. Buddha,
Confucius etc.) may be seen as a product of the same origin, yet taking a
completely different non-monotheist Atheist path.
At a time when Enlightenment was bothering religion Descartes made a
silly but selling "ghost and its machine" wrapping for the
soul-human-god triad by declaring that he existed because he thought he
existed.
John Searle: Consciousness is the last in an endless row of conscious states.
Derrida, together with Freud, the best friend of feminist "theory",
introduced the deliberate use of undefinable words - and/or definable
words in context outside their definition. However, where Freud believed
in a not yet discovered biological basis for his groundless theory,
Derrida (and feminists) didn't really care.
Georg Henrik von Wright tried, in vain, to stay clear of reductivist views of the Cartesian ghost and its machine.
The reason Peter Klevius refers to von Wright as his "mentor" has
nothing to do with philosophy, but all to do with his name, status and
kindness. Whereas Wittgenstein started as extremely rich (and von Wright
as the son of a wealthy aristocrat family), Peter Klevius started with
nothing, no education, no family, no country of his own, not even a name
or a language of his own, but with hefty debts he had no say over, and a
child to take care of as a single father. So he was the perfect target
for prejudice*.
*Most migrants today coming to Europe have both money and family/kinship
connections and a welcoming system in the new country + when it comes
to the biggest group, i.e. muslims, the additional support and
protection against "islamophobia" etc. to an extent that makes many of
them reliously motivated racist and sexist bullies.
Wittgenstein was exactly a similar Atheist as Peter Klevius, despite
Wikipedia's stupid effort to "faith" him, e.g. by referring to him as
the "fiercest critic of scientism". Who isn't?!
Football and chess are games - math isn't.
Sweden's Sofia Jakobsson's wonderful
goal against England in Women's World Cup 2019. On the pic she in yellow
is already on the left side of the white defender but she actually shot
from the right side - which wasn't helpful for the goalie.
Football is pure gaming inside a pitch of rules - math is pure ruling with the rules that constitute the entirety of what can be done with math.
Kripke's "meaning skepticism" is just nonsense. The idea that for an
isolated individual there is no fact in virtue of which he/she means one
thing rather than another by the use of a word. Kripke's "skeptical
solution" to meaning skepticism is to ground meaning in the behavior of a
community - i.e. Wittgenstein's language game.
Recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation seems to boost the anti-China and pro-Saudi dictator family liturgy.
If you wonder why little Iran is incl.
in the demonized enemy triad together with Russia and China - ask the
islamofascist Saudi dictator family and the Human Rights violating
muslim world sharia organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC.Hint:
It has something to do with Zoroaster, Shia and Uyghur Islamic State
fighters.. Or continue reading. Btw, isn't it funny that far right
"islamophobes" are so keen on smearing China?! But they aren't the only
ones shooting themselves in the foot in their anti-China hysteria.
The preposterous religious supremacist view that "monotheisms"
constitute the crown of human development - despite the fact that a
majority in the world are Atheists (i.e. not believing in a "monotheist"
"god").
The followers of the last and worst of the "monotheist" religions,
archangel Gabriel's message to "the last messenger" aka islam, destroyed
Zoroastrian texts in the library of Alexandria. Zoroastrian texts
transferred to the Greeks was stored in the great library of Alexandria,
founded by Ptolemy II Philapdephius. It has been estimated to have
contained two million lines, i.e. some 800 rolls attributed to
Zoroaster.
In AD 642, Alexandria was attacked by muslims. Several Arabic sources
describe the library's destruction by the order of caliph Umar who said
"if those books are in agreement with the Koran, we have no need of
them; and if these are opposed to the Koran, destroy them." And Peter
Klevius says nothing could be more opposed to the Sunni caliph than
Persian Zoroaster. Who else in history could have been more keen on
destroying Zoroastrian texts?! Not to take this tectonic fact into
account is pure charlatanism.
Archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would
make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures. Moreover, even
an oral tradition fails by at least 1,000 years.
Whoever interested in what consciousness is and how the brain works, need to read Peter Klevius stone example (1992) and the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (1994).
In fact, Peter Klevius stone example should be compulsory reading for
everyone - just like a vaccination against dumb or deliberately evil
"spirituality".
That will cure much of your "religiosity" etc. bias.
Peter Klevius knows about aliens because he is one - you're too. Most
parents see their children turning into aliens already in their teens
(that's how the concept 'teenager' emerged). Changing education/job and
location also alienates. And when we send humans on multi-generational
space trips, their grand-grand-grand etc. -children will have absolutely
nothing in common with the grand-grand-grand etc. -children to those
humans who stayed on Earth or went to other places. So what would it
mean to be a human?
The reason why Peter Klevius is so successful in scientific analysis is
(except for his brain) the fact that he simply checks for bias
(religious, political, economic etc) - and the results reveal themselves
naturally. And according to Weiniger (who had a big influence on
Wittgenstein), 'the Woman' is the main obstacle against women's
emancipation, and according to Klevius, 'the Human' is the main obstacle
against science. Klevius may accordingly be one of the last human
scientists.
And of course, checking for all kinds of bias erases pretty much every possible source of support.
The first and most important redundancy to understand is to skip
'understanding' all together and replace it with 'adaptation'. That
simple maneuvre will clean the playing field from distractions more than
anything else.
We don't "observe" or "understand" - we adapt. And not only to our outer
surrounding but eqaully to our own body incl. our brain. Or a brick
turning into grovel/sand. Or a star etc.
Is the flying dust from what used to be a brick less or more "complex"? Or the supernova?
Although the brain/nerve system is more complex, it's no different from e.g. light skin that gets tanned in the sun.
And when Klevius says "we" he really means it. There's no "I" (other
than as origo) or "self". As Klevius wrote on the web 2003: In creating
this text Klevius would have been helpless without an assisting world".
Wittgenstein showed the impossibility of a "private language" and
Klevius showed (see the stone example below) that information is the
flow of perception and that there's no difference between observation
and understanding.
As a consequence there's no free will (even Luther realized this and
threw it in the face of Erasmus) because free will is a linguistic
mirage (although Luther called it dependancy on a "god").
Klevius stone example
My "monoexistentialistic" view was and is that there can only be adaptation.
I exemplified it (1992:31-33, ISBN 9173288411) with 1) someone seeing
(fotons) a stone and 2) telling (sound waves) about it to 3) someone who
writes it down (text) to 4) someone else who sees (fotons) the text.
5) Then the initial "observer" kicks the stone which turns out to be
made of paper-mache.
Klevius argues that this example covers everything essential for understanding human information flow.
There's only now - not a "past" because no one can live in the past.
Exemplified (1992:31-33, ISBN 9173288411) with 1) someone seeing
(fotons/understanding/language?*) a stone and 2) telling (sound
waves/language) about it to 3) someone who writes it down
(text/language) to 4) someone else who sees (fotons) the text. 5) Then
the initial "observer" kicks the stone which turns out to be made of
paper-mache.
Klevius argues that this example covers everything essential for understanding human information flow.
1) is a specific perception (understanding) and thought (interpretation)
synonymous with the individual's communicative use (compare
Wittgenstein's "language game") of the concept 'stone'.
2) is the second individual's linguistic interpretation and
understanding of a 'stone', but limited to this individual's specific
communicative use of the term.
3) same as above
4) same as above
5) a new perception (understanding)
This last one isn't to be seen as a "correction" but just as part of a continuous flow of adaptation.
* some people understand without necessarily putting a word on it
In 1994 I developed my theory calling it EMAH ('the Even More
Astonishing Hypothesis', alluding to Francis Crick's 1994 book The
Astonishing Hypothesis). EMAH has been on the web since 2003. In the
“book” I also warned how research is vulnerable to be choked by its own
peer steered citation cartels. I finished the book by exemplifying a new
division of human cultures in a chapter called Khoi, San and Bantu. My
moral bedrock since my teens rests on universal (negative) Human Rights
for everyone - incl. women.
Here's rough Google translate based "translation" from Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources:
What I want to say is that there is a culturally independent "thought
intelligence" and that there is an intellectual difference between cats,
monkeys and humans even when body? and environmental experiences are
equated. A person can simply boast of experiences in a cat impossible
way, no matter how dull the lives they both lived. Produced in this way,
the matter seems obvious, but it is often diffused in the debate.
I also find it difficult to understand the relevance of the theory of
the so-called The "Machiavellian Intelligence" which states that social
manipulation skills would have shaped and driven our intelligence. For
me, it seems as if successful% ocio play "today seems to lack
intelligence and / or thought correlation. It is more exceptional, in
relation to other factors, that fruitfully intriguing carries fruit. You
can as well see memory capacity (in an ecological context ) as a
consequence of the selection factor and social interaction.
An interesting detail in this context is that the large brain of man as
well as of other animals is actually the "neck" upon which it so-called.
the olfactory center (the odor organ) is associated with the brain
stem. This "olfactory neck" has, in man, received its longest and most
complex design, while man actually has denser accumulations of
odor-producing fat glands than any other animal. One can therefore
rightly assume that the odor organ has played a crucial role in
designing the way in which we perceive / think the world. You just need
to think about how strong and overwhelming emotions some smells that you
have not known for a long time can induce. For me personally, it seems
to apply mainly to smells and smells with positive associations from my
childhood. At the beginning of my work, it appeared as something of an
intuitive feeling that the "psychological" view of the brain so strong
in the 20th century led us away from the evolutionary self-explanations
of thought.
In line with the modern "hygiene", which seems to have the main purpose
of concealing body scents and replacing them with artificial, allergies
and immune problems increase. If you assume that thinking has a close
connection with smells and scents, this is undoubtedly a reflection.
Does this also affect us on other levels?
While in his book "The Scented Ape" Michael Stoddart pleads for the fact
that man, when she started hunting in flock, would have lost large
parts of his odor communication ability due to that the then necessary
monogamy was threatened by sexual odor invasions from the females but at
the same time one can come up with several alternative scenarios and
objections. The "olfactory neck" complexity of man suggests Lex. that
something closely related to the odor organ has' driven our
intelligence. Lex's dogs. which have recognized good sense of smell,
even the very strongly developed "olfactory neck" and therefore the
brain's development, except possibly marginally, can be linked to or
from simpler degrees of odor detection. In fact, we know quite a bit
about the more subtle odor perceptions that man unconsciously occupies.
The connection between intelligence / intellect and its biological
anchors can thus appear to be problematic on several levels. This
applies inter alia to the connection between sensory impression and
abstraction. In a remark about rational reconstruction, Jurgen Haberma
makes a distinction between what he calls sensory experience
(observation) and communicative experience (understanding). Against
this, one can polemise if one sees the thought process as consisting of
parts in memory patterns and experiences that must be processed /
understood in order to be meaningful at all.
sees a stone = sight impression as understood by the viewer
I see a stone = opinion understood by another person
I suppose Habermas sees the latter example as communication because of
the purpose (via the language) of the original stone viewer's visual
impression of the stone and then to claim that this "extent" of the
meaning in the opinion cannot be proved to be of a different nature from
the thought / understanding process that lies behind the first example.
This understanding of the stone does not differ from the understanding
of an abstract symbol like Lex. a letter or a word, written or
pronounced. The statement "I see a stone" is likewise a direct
impression of mind which, like the stone as an object, lacks all meaning
if it is not understood. Here one can object that the word stone in
contrast to the phenomenon stone can transmit meanings (symbolic
construction according to Habermas). Nevertheless, I would like to
insist that this is also apparent and a consequence of our way of
perceiving the language and Popper's third world (see below).
A stone can be perceived as everything from the printing ink in a word
to an advanced symbolic design. It is not a matter of difference between
observation and understanding, but only different, unrelated levels of
understanding. Nor does the division "pure observation" and "reflective
observation" have any other than purely comparative significance, since
any delimitation (other than the purely comparative) does not make sense
meaningfully. Doesn't it matter that communication takes place between
two conscious, thinking beings? Certainly, Habermas and others are free
to elevate communication between individuals to another group than the
communication the stone viewer has with himself and his cultural
heritage via reflection in the stone, but in this case this is merely an
ethnocentric position without relevance to the distinction /
observation distinction.
For me, it is therefore not a fundamental difference in the symbol
combination in the sensory experience of a stone or of Habermas text. Of
course, this does not mean that in any way I would express any kind of
valuation of the Habermas or the stone. What it does mean, however, is
that I want to question the division of observation / understanding and
thus also the division of primitive / civilian thinking. In the name of
justice, it should be said that Habara's example is based on a
completely different chain of thought with a different purpose than this
one mentioned, and that I only want to try to demonstrate the danger of
generalizing the relationship between observation / understanding. In
other contexts, it becomes almost unnoticed for a linguistic axiom
(virus to take information technology as an example) that then both
generates and cumulates differences that do not exist.
In the book Evolution of the Brain / Creation of the Self (with preface
by Karl Popper), John C. EccIes notes among other things. that: '1t is
surprising how slow the growth of World 3 (K. Poppers and J. EccIes
division of existence and experiences; World I = physical objects and
states, World 2 = states of consciousness, World 3 = knowledge in
objective sense) was in the earlier of thousands of years of Homo
sapiens sapiens. And even today there are races of mankind with
negligible cultural creativity. Only when the societies could provide
the primary needs of shelter, food, clothing, and security were able to
participate effectively in cultural creativity, so enriching World 3. "
This quote shows Eccle's and Popper's legitimate concerns about the
issue and partly the cultural-revolutionary retreat path they use to
leave the question. (See the chapter Khoi, San and Bantu in this book)
It also reveals a certain, perhaps unconscious, aversion to the idea
that societies would voluntarily settle for meeting their "primary
needs".
Karl Popper has, with reasons, made himself known as the freedom
advocate and here I fully share his attitude. Freedom (implicitly a
human and responsible freedom) is a clear deficiency in the modern
welfare state. At the same time, it is so that the concept of freedom
does not exist at all among the collectors / hunter cultures referred to
in this consideration. The concept of freedom, like diamonds, is
created only under pressure.
Klevius wrote before metoo:
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
In Peter Klevius Yule* sex tutorial Geri Jewell reveals that "the denial
was that the passion David had sexually I couldn't equal", and Michelle
Thomson that when her friend raped her "it wasn't sexual".
* Yule is old Swedish (spelled 'jul')
meaning wheel (which comes from the same word 'hjul') of the year, i.e.
Vinter solstice around 21 December, and in modern times "Christmas"
celebration although it has nothing to do with religion.
Klevius: All women are gay*. However, not every woman has realized it as yet...
Women, from a male point of view, have
wonderful assess - just like feamale dogs from a male dog's
perspective. And not only that, women have the potential to reproduce.
And when women are receptive there are usually no lack of providers. So
women should really not have anything to complain about in this respect.
Other than, of course sex segregation/apartheid.
The sperm has
to be attracted to the egg in some way. That's biological 'heterosexual
attraction'. Testosterone is an important hormone in this task. However,
the measurements are not easily compared between men and women because
labs tend to (why?!) state the percentage of free testosterone for men,
but give a measurement in pg/ml for women. Or the male measurements will
be in ng/dl requiring a mathematical conversion for direct comparison
to the "normal" range of the opposite sex. The level readings between
men and women are so vastly different because the number represents a
percentage of the TOTAL testosterone. Women naturally start with a much
lower total amount, so 2.5% of 40ng/dl is going to be much less than
2.5% of 800ng/dl in a man.
However, even 20 times more
Testosterone doesn't mean a man is necessitated to sex - merely that he
is always potentially ready for sex (at least Klevius - the "extremely
normal" - is and has always been since his adolescence). In other words,
Klevius proposes that we lay to rest the old imposing "dog sex" culture
and instead all treat each other as humans, not as sexual beings.
However, to achieve this we need to teach young girls (and boys) about
the only real difference between the sexes, namely heterosexual
attraction, so it won't be confused with sexual acts (which people
should of course be allowed to perform without any other restrictions
than what the law says added with full and informed consent - just like
most other civilized behavior. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly,
we need to end the mostly male "push for sex" culture, i.e. dog
behavior. Asexuality should be the default state of interaction.
And
to avoid unnecessary confusion re. Klevius sex analysis, do understand
that unlike physical reproduction in the female body (which is
completely independent from the male one), heterosexual attraction needs
both sexes although the female one is in this respect the passive one.
At this point someone (especially women) might have problem reconciling
this with the fact that many women do enjoy sexual acts without
possessing the male type gaze for HSA. Klevius then repeats that
although all women are gay, not all women do or enjoy sex, which fact
should be respected equally as respecting that Klevius has never needed
drugs or alcohol for being happy or having good sex, nor has he ever
deliberately thrown white pepper around just for the pleasure of
sneezing (rest calm, Klevius won't ever criticize you if you do).
And
you, if you think this analysis is just Klevius opinion then you
haven't understood it at all - read and think again. It's the same logic
as 2+2=4.
1 HSA isn't sexual acts per se but a biologically
inplanted interest for being attracted to having sex with females.
Whereas dogs seem to be more excited by the smell of a female dog's
pheromones, human males seem to be more interested in the shape of the
female body. In fact, analytically there's no difference between gay sex
and hetero sex if HSA isn't a factor (however, it would be enough to
term it HSA sex if the male at least think about a physical woman -
compare e.g. heterosexual men unknowingly being attracted to males
disguised as women).
2 Males have way more potential urge for
sex than women because of some 20 times more testosterone. And please,
don't confuse this with what Klevius calls "rubbing sex", i.e. just
stimulation of the genitals without HSA (compare the case of white
pepper and sneezing).
3 Being pregnant and having a baby has nothing to do with sex segregation at all because it's entirely a woman affair.
4 This means that all women, incl.
asexual and achild ones ought to be treated equal with males. And as a
consequence, this analysis also benefits men who want to get rid of
their macho masculinity label as well as those who unnecessarily feel
they're lacking one.
Peter Klevius drawing 'Woman' from 1979:
Drawing
(1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really
limited understanding (i.e. PC people), do note that the DNA "ladder"
has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for
escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress over painful
flames into a crown of liberty.
Perpetua
(203 AD): 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching
all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person
could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all
sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and
spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying
attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the
weapons.' Perpetua realized she would have to do battle not merely with
wild beasts, but with the Devil himself. Perpetua writes: They stripped
me, and I became a man'.
Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Peter Klevius below to
better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances,
religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women
even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been
held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's
sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women
started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the
only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Peter
Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't
it).
Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Klevius to better understand
the concept) is imposed by circumstances, religious/cultural sex
segregation is what is imposed on girls/women even when it's no longer
necessary. In the latter case women have been held back by men to an
extent where incompetency outside "women's sphere" increasingly became
obvious. As a consequence grown up women started internalizing this
incompetency as "femininity" although the only true femininity is
defined by heterosexual attraction (read Klevius because you'll find
nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't it).
Peter Klevius 1979 poem 'My Friend':
Ett synintryck
en beröring
ord som diffusa budbärare
speglar en glimt av din tanke
i chifferform redan förvrängda
förrän de blivit sagda
av mig och din förväntan
min vän
A rough translation for those poor uneducated individuals lacking
Swedish, the origin of the English language (oh, perhaps you were
unaware of English being a Scandinavian* language - my deepest condolences):
* The oldest Swedish is Old Nordic. To
call it "old Norse" wrongly associates it with Norway and Norwegian,
both of which weren't around as entities until after the Viking
age. As Klevius has always said: North Germanic, and probably Germanic
per se, was a late IE outcome between proto-Uralic and PIE (i.e. what
Klevius use to call "old Finland-Swedish").
A perception (see/se, track/tryck, i.e. see-in-track/synintryck) a touch words as diffuse messengers (words/ord, bid-bearers/budbärare) mirror a glimpse of your thought (think/ing, tank/e) in cipher form already distorted (fore wronged/förvrängd/a) before they've been said (sagda) by me and your expectation (fore waiting/förväntan) my friend ( min frände, min vän)
Women on sex and work
Geri Jewell (top left), Nicola
Sturgeon and Michelle Thomson (below). Nicola Sturgeon says she would
not have suffered her career for a child. Michelle Thomson says she
didn't think her rapist (a teenage friend) had any sexual desire when he
raped her a night when she was 14 and they walked home together. This
she told in front of a tear filled UK Parliament (she has also recently
been questioned in a pending mortgage fraud case). However, Klevius
doesn't believe in rape without sexual desire - what was lacking was
respect for basic Human Rights equality, i.e. that her friend had been
brainwashed by sex segregation to an extent that he saw her only as an
object for heterosexual attraction, not as an other human being on an
equal footing.
Actress and comedian Geri Jewell, who has cerebral palsy (witch has not
affected her intelligence - only motorics), reveals in a new memoir, I’m Walking As Straight As I Can
(alluding to her a-heterosexuality as well as her motoric disability)
how much she struggled growing up with a disability and how she wrestled
with her "sexuality" (or rather lack of it), and reveals she is a
"lesbian", which is a code word for not possessing male heterosexual
attraction genes nor same level of testosterone.
Geri Jewell was the first disabled actor to take a lead role in a sitcom
and she's gone on to challenge ideas about what is possible. She
describes the pressures on her to go into a job suited to her disability
and what made her rebel against such restricting expectations
Peter Klevius: Her rebellion against such restricting expectations as
created by cultural sex segregation is just stunning - although her
escape under an equally sex segregated cover ("lesbian", "gay" etc.) is
not. Why didn't she claim her Human Rights as described in the 1948
Universal Human Rights Declaration against fascism, which gives her the
right to lead her life as she wishes without having to "explain" it. Or
is it because she is an American, and the US Constitution still doesn't
give women full equality with men - hence necessitating labels?
US women fighting in vain for equality some 70 years after Finnish women got full equality.
As long as fascism is called good - how could we ever stop it? But
Klevius, as a critical European ("islamophobe" if you like) feels
extremely embarrassed in front of those true refugees escaping islam and
hoping for protection under Western Human Rights. Sorry!
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't
it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy
exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!
Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But
willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many
women still.
But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?
Drawing
(1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really
limited understanding (i.e. PC people), do note that the DNA "ladder"
has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for
escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress over painful
flames into a crown of liberty.
Perpetua
(203 AD): 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching
all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person
could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all
sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and
spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying
attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the
weapons.' Perpetua realized she would have to do battle not merely with
wild beasts, but with the Devil himself. Perpetua writes: They stripped
me, and I became a man'.
Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Peter Klevius below to
better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances,
religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women
even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been
held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's
sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women
started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the
only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Peter
Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't
it).
Update: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid here.
The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes.
Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.
And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.
The above maps could be almost
identical if produced with same techniques. This is no coincident but
due to the "mysterious" code (the Jews) that made Arab imperialism
possible and historical analysis impossible ("mysterious") if not
included.
Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to
waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However,
without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and
illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the
way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in
Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have
quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.
Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:
1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.
2 There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the
rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later
invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before
Malik.
3 Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and
leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were
the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight
racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered
internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system
under the sword.
4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated
as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself
for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in
bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able
to drain a whole continent.
Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!
A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim
"professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice
muslims".
* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.
Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still
believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the
impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin
(as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason
don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid -
and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and
others don't want to talk about.
And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:
1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other
sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.
2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim
nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948
Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men,
which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form. * There's a dumb view presented for
even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and
therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may
have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made
deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!
Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim
women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always
treated as "the other".
A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even
considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl,
most muslim so called "scholars".
A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and
universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the
West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame
them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on
earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human
Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the
reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts
of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.
So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility
with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims,
incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and
filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some
essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity
in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.
* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult
discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And
even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as
differing human "interpretations".
Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And
"human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the
important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we
all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the
dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you
skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between
Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims)
equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as
can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's
main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN.
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and
racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the
muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.
Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.
Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with
you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should
muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?
And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:
Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics
and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.
Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and
politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does
it.
From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius
comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But
what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays,
Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide
diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan
with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from
the Koran.
Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the
Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The
muslim booty and sex jihad?
"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and
pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is
quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done
to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"
Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims
sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then -
oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus
was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement
formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved
because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.
Shabestari: Freedom of expression all depends on whether a people has
politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom
is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a
great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't
truly developed is another question. This has to do with political
hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a
cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in
general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.
Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of
expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how
could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she
works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing
organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!
"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within
these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others
(muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."
Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for.
As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as
those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than
by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most
evil of muslims.