A response to the Gay Myth.  Not written by me as seemingly believed by certain idiots on

Clare Flourish

I have lived my life with the handbrake on. Too prone to hit the foot-brake too, and terrified of the accelerator pedal, I seek to free myself. My project here is finding what stories, understandings, and responses serve my freedom, which increase my serfdom. Jtteop, despite a rebarbative idea which initially blinded me to the value which might be in what he says, seems to seek such freedom through words, so repays a closer look.

His “myth” is that one is born gay, only attracted to persons of the same gender. His counter-myth is that being gay is not innate.

The process starts when a person says words or performs actions that are outside the range of social acceptability for their gender. It will then be suggested to the person that they might be ‘gay’ and they will be asked to meditate on that possibility, with the hope that…

View original post 347 more words


Mini post on lethal chambers


Yes it has been a while since I last posted. That’s the busy season for you. But I just read an interesting chapter online and I thought I would share. I’ve had this phrase in my mind about “constructing a kind of a lethal chamber” which was a suggestion I once read from the end of the 19th century to deal with ‘the unfit’. I googled this phrase and came up with this chapter which will explain all. Enjoy!

The mystery of Dr Ken Fabian

Ah, Dr Kenneth J Fabian M.D – Where are you?

I’m putting this here as kind of a bookmark that I can edit later. Basically the story is as follows:

Following my discovery of the psycho-sexual environment I happened across the website of Dr Ken Fabian who had developed what he called A Feeling-Based Theory of Autism. it was a geocities site and such sites were later automatically resurrected so you can see it here:

Such 90’s web stylings!

There was also a blog:

When I discovered this stuff I was stunned. Here was someone who seemed to know what was going on, have a theory about it and be preaching it! Yet no one seemed to be listening. There’s nothing I love more than a lone voice of truth in the wilderness. Anyway, I had an ultimately frustrating email exchange with him and found out some more information. Then I lost contact with him and he also seemed to stop posting on the internet so I presumed that he actually died.

But I am left with many questions. The main one being “How can someone who effectively has the answer not have anyone listen to that answer?” I mean I understand how difficult it is to get people interested in reading my book for instance but wouldn’t parents of kids with autism be desperate enough to try anything?

The only reason I can come up with for the lack of interest in his theories is that it come up against the deep nature of reality and his method gives us a glimpse that we’re not in reality – that glimpse being more information than most people can cope with.

First edit:  We’re talking about a successful technique here.  One that can cure autism!  Who would care about something like that?

Of course the first reaction that someone might have about it is that it surely can’t be true.  I assure you it is true.  However the only independent confirmation on the internet that I can offer is this:

Oh yeah and he is/was a real medical doctor:

And here’s a medical paper he wrote:

Second edit:  Oh yes, The web archive has some interesting things.

On his website: it seems he was attempting to recruit children with Autism to work on at the time he ‘disappeared’.

One more for the road:

God damn you can find a lot of information on the internet!

I may as well also chuck this on there.  I tell you it’s shocking the amount of information you can freely find on the internet about people once you start looking.

‘Getting it’ – Helen Keller and my aims

The story of Helen Keller is well known, although perhaps less so these days.  However the critical juncture in her life was obviously her introduction to language.

I wrote a book called “A journey to the end of philosophy” which also pertains to the discovery of a certain discourse, and it also does so by showing rather than telling, however it never exactly reveals what this discovery is.  The reason for this is that I don’t want to cause undue damage to the social order without knowing what would replace it, or if anything would.

Ideally in the case of normal people I would like them to know that something is there but not be experiencing it directly.  That way philosophers could discuss the situation and work out a consensus on the way forward.  The only problem is that without experiencing it directly they won’t know the significance of what’s there.

Anyway they don’t care in the slightest about my discovery, and if I was to show them it collapse’s the social environment so that I can’t talk about it with them either.

In the case of people who are what is caused aspirers or autistic I think there is real value in introducing them to aspects of the environment that neurotypical people take for granted.  The question is whether it is possible to do that without throwing them fully into the environment and the problems that entails.

In the case of Helen Keller, she lost her sight and hearing at an early age so it was hard for her to learn sign language by touch and at first she didn’t know what they were trying to teach her so she wen though a period where she knew people were doing what we would call language but she didn’t know what that was:

I do not remember when I first realized that I was different from other people; but I knew it before my teacher came to me. I had noticed that my mother and my friends did not use signs as I did when they wanted anything done, but talked with their mouths. Sometimes I stood between two persons who were conversing and touched their lips. I could not understand, and was vexed. I moved my lips and gesticulated frantically without result. This made me so angry at times that I kicked and screamed until I was exhausted.


My earliest distinct recollection of my father is making my way through great drifts of newspapers to his side and finding him alone, holding a sheet of paper before his face. I was greatly puzzled to know what he was doing. I imitated this action, even wearing his spectacles, thinking they might help solve the mystery. But I did not find out the secret for several years. Then I learned what those papers were, and that my father edited one of them.

She described it thus:

Have you ever been at sea in a dense fog, when it seemed as if a tangible white darkness shut you in, and the great ship, tense and anxious, groped her way toward the shore with plummet and sounding-line, and you waited with beating heart for something to happen? I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding-line, and had no way of knowing how near the harbour was. “Light! give me light!” was the wordless cry of my soul, and the light of love shone on me in that very hour.

This is how she described the moment where she ‘got it’ and started understanding what language was:

Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten–a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that “w-a-t-e-r” meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.

More information in this page.–Helen-Keller-Comprehends-the-Word–Water-.html



Obvious or False?

New and true: it’s obvious* or false

* Ah, actually someone might have said this before – I don’t know.

False or Obvious: the blogger’s dilemma

After blogging for any time on the internet, you may become aware that every idea people come up with is placed under one of two categorizations; it’s either obvious or false.

False we can understand, but what’s the use of ‘obvious’? 

Obvious is for when someone comes up with an idea that is actually agreed with but people don’t want to credit them with it.  Therefore they say that it’s ‘unoriginal’. 
I’m guilty of doing it too.

I’m as guilty as anyone.

“Your blog would make an excellent handout to be given to phil 101 students on their first day.  Have you ever considered becoming a philosophy lecturer or something like that?”

– Me to John

So you get called ‘unoriginal’.  Where do you go from there?  Probably you have a long debate about whether you’re original or not.

So at that point there’s several people arguing about originality.  Sitting in their houses in different corners of the globe.

Someone may be typing away on a computer and those physically close to them may ask “What are you doing?”

That’s a very legitimate question.

Do they say “I’m devoting some time to convincing someone that they’re not original?”

What kind of activity is being performed here?

It’s clear there is some kind of ‘fail’ because there can be no benefit to anyone.  The reason that people still do it is that for most of the history of humankind, if someone communicated with you it meant they were close to you and therefore relevant.  Now it no longer means that, but our brains can no longer conceive of any other way.

This generally means that blogging in a social sense is quite useless, but it might help to hone conversational skills for genuine social encounters.

Then there’s the dumb reciprocalness of it.  If i go away and comment on a bunch of people’s blogs, and especially if I say nice things, then they will view and comment on mine.

Its like if only the people who wrote letters ‘to the editor’ of the newspaper got to write stories.

There’s the ‘star factor‘:  If Richard Dawkins wrote a blog with some bad argument against religion everyone would just call him wonderful no matter what it was.  You can check out this phenomena on his website if you like – maybe even add to it!

There’s the temporariness.  Only the latest blog matters, and then only if the latest blog is recent.

That’s enough about the crappyness of blogging for now.  But it’s all part of the buildup to the end of philosophy.

“See you at the end of philosophy”

Richard Dawkins is religious

How Richard Dawkins is religious.

Very simply because Richard Dawkins says that he is religious. He says that he’s a “Cultural Christian” and a “Cultural Anglican”. Now to say that he’s religious in this context isn’t quite the same thing as to say that he believes in God or any external supernatural entity like that. Indeed he does not. Infact, he believes in a much stranger state of affairs than that.
Consider the difference between a ‘cultural’ christian and a ‘normal’ christian the difference is that the normal christian believe in a supernatural and metaphysical cause and interaction with his/her christianity.
Specifically the typical christian believes that by virtue of their belief and actions certain metaphysical events occur within the supernatural realm.

Now the interesting thing is that Richard Dawkins would say that none of those events actually occur and that the christianity is infact cultural. The only difference between his christianity and that of regular christianity is that the practitioners of regular christianity are apparently deceived as to the causes and effects of their christian beliefs.

Richard Dawkins is saying in effect that his is a more correct version of christianity by rejecting the supernatural notions. Lots of denominations claim that theirs is the one correct interpretation.

The difference between Richard Dawkins’s system and the normal christianity is that under the actions of the metaphysical christian are created in response to the supposed supernatural situation. What Richard Dawkins is saying is that there is no supernatural situation but he’s going to press of regardless with that belief system.

It would be like if you had the Aztecs who were sacrificing people by ripping their still beating hearts out stop believing that it was keeping the universe going but kept doing it regardless!
It would be like if Japanese suicide pilots in WWII stopped believing that the emperor was divine but kept on flying out to crash into the US ships regardless.

To Recap

Richard Dawkins – Cultural christian. In his view all christians are really just cultural christians. (There can be no supernatural cause for christianity) Therefore he believes he is the only metaphysically correct christian.