Before we get too far off point . . . whatever that was, I was
suggesting that in each of us is our "set of presuppositions" that comes
from who knows where, presuppositions we have no ability to reject or
even question. Or, to go back a bit further with our terms, the
superego. Freud thought these came from our parents and Christianity,
but they needn't. Mine must come at least partly from the Marine Corps.
So when we argue, our arguments always miss the real points. We don't
argue our presuppositions or or superegos. We can't. Instead we argue
what our presuppositions and superegos tell us is right and we always
want to be right. And look at all those people who are wrong: How sad.
I'm too old to be right all the time. If I'm truly a poet I need to be
wrong at least some of the time and then scourge my soul or lament or
something . . . probably not, but I at least don't trust the surface
right and wrong, the surface logic that we see inexorably argued by the
philosophers to get to the incontrovertible conclusion. When I see
these conclusions come out at a considerable distance from the poetry I
have in mind, maybe I'm concentrating on poetry as much as I intended.
Not that these conclusions are wrong based on the presented evidence --
just that they don't know how to get at the constellations or
presuppositions we all walk around with, nor the emotional nuances a
considerable number of which we don't even notice.
Lawrence
On 10/5/2015 6:25 PM, (Redacted sender Jlsperanza for DMARC) wrote:
In a message dated 10/5/2015 8:09:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Tit-sucker. Yes, I like that. Nietzsche referred to him as the "last
man."
On 10/5/2015 4:41 PM, Edward Farrell wrote: "a spirit of entitlement at
the tit of a all-pervasive, maternalistic state. It's the struggle between
these opposing spirits that forms the context of the current gun control
debates. To remain impartial and even handed, let's call it the struggle of the
he-men versus the tit-suckers."
Interestingly, the debate is on the state rather than the nation. The
Italians, and possibly the Old Romans, referred to this with a feminine noun,
but as a derivation of 'father' (a), and we know that in the male (b), the
tits are atavistic! (c)
Cheers,
Speranza
(a) C Subst. 1 pā̆trĭa, ae (old gen. patrial, Lucr. 1, 41), f (sc.
terra) a One's fatherland, native land or country, native place:
(b) "Mammary glands develop during different growth cycles. They exist in
both sexes during embryonic stage, forming only a rudimentary duct tree at
birth. In this stage, mammary gland development depends on systemic (and
maternal) hormones."
(c) From conception until sexual differentiation, all mammalian fetuses
within the same species look the same, regardless of sex.
In humans, this lasts for around 6 weeks, after which genetically-male
fetuses begin producing male hormones such as testosterone.
Usually, males' nipples do not change much past this point; however, some
males develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which the fatty tissue
around and under the nipple develops into something similar to a female
breast.
This may happen whenever the testosterone level drops.
Gynecomastia, although not as severe, may occur in pubescent boys
undergoing physical changes due to the rapid and uncontrolled release of
hormones,
including estrogen.
The heightened levels of estrogen in pubescent male bodies leads to the
swelling of the nipple and surrounding tissue – this can often look similar to
a female human nipple – and may cause slight discomfort.
Thus, because the "female template" is the default for humans, the question
is not why evolution has not selected against male nipples, but why it
would be advantageous to select against male nipples to begin with.
The uncoupling of male and female traits occurs if there is selection for
it: if the trait is important to the reproductive success of both males and
females but the best or "optimal" trait is different for a male and a
female.
We would not expect such an uncoupling if the attribute is important in
both sexes and the "optimal" value is similar in both sexes, nor would we
expect uncoupling to evolve if the attribute is important to one sex but
unimportant in the other.
The latter is the case for nipples.
Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear.
But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share
characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a
genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather
than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that
the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as
carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them.
In a famous paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin emphasize
that we should not immediately assume that every trait has an adaptive
explanation.
Just as the spandrels of St. Mark's domed cathedral in Venice are simply an
architectural consequence of the meeting of a vaulted ceiling with its
supporting pillars, the presence of nipples in male mammals is a genetic
architectural by-product of nipples in females. This idea implies men have
nipples because females do.
