Work-Play Conundrum

pt.2 Dividing the One Into Smaller Wedges

If species are to be successful they are many and they fit into a niche separate from others. This separate remains unified throughout this earth because of an intrarelationship that connects all biological species we call life. We have tended to filter the tree of life by separation of the forms into kingdoms , etc, down to singular species and single species into the individuals that are the members of that species.

And we see complexity into the dividing of ever more unique entities into smaller and smaller components until we arrive at the singular life form as if somehow this one individual life wears the crown separately from all other singular individuals and therefore as the crown bearer of each individual example itself somehow is the ultimacy and must therefore achieve its life by succeeding as that individual in somehow becoming the expression of the success of life.

By this simplification we demand respect for the value of each individual life as having singular importance as a life. But Life as the whole is actually a complexity of all of these individuals whose existence is contingent on the entirety.

Placing our emphasis on the singular we no longer understand that the singular life cannot exist apart from the composite of Life and that all beings are not somehow intra connected but rather only vaguely inter connected.

To just define this individual being as an existing singular being of the species is itself however false. There are absolutely no individual human beings on this earth. Like it or not, no I or you is a singular I or you. And if we insist on dividing the wedge into its smallest components and then adding upwards towards the entirety of Humanity and onwards to all of these components being what Life is, we are fooling ourselves.

No, you say. No matter how much Ken Taylor longs for the unification of the I and the You of individual separation be (re)united, it isn’t so because the I and the You will always remain two distinct individuals.

But despite your claim it remains that the I of Ken Taylor does not exist as an I whatsoever because this I of the being of Ken Taylor simply is an imaginary label of many lifeforms that compose that lifeforms.

I exist not because I am an identity but because thousands of organisms live inside every bodily system I have that makes those systems function. Without these internal microbiomes these systems don’t function and I do not exist period. I live only as a composite of all of these organisms that permit my body to function. And every system of my body to function, including your brain, remains functionable only due to these microbiomes. I am not one man existing on my own but thousands of living beings that compose the totality of what I appear to be as an element, just as any “non” living form contains millions of atoms to bring about the stable qualities we are capable of observing, what I, or any human is a magnificent interplay between my cellular and these other lifeforms that harmoniously (hopefully) share and live and function that permit the observable Me to be observed not as the millions of lifeforms that actually are what I am, but the appearance of the Me that I appear to be.

The fluids are generally considered sterile (both the cerebrospinal and blood) and typically absent microbiomes although occasionally the microbiomes do stray into the fluids, but no healthy “individual” can function should too many microbiomes stray from their environment within the body via these fluids into another bodily system.

Outside of their own environment within the body they would become invasive species and attack the microbiomes of another system causing disruption within the invaded system and overall bodily dysfunction, or what we would term, ill health.

And if that dispel the myth of your self-infaturation with speciality as an existing uniqueness, let us turn to our inherited DNA. The misconception of the Individual is you are somehow one-half your father and one-half your mother. For the male offspring that is close to being correct. For the female she is only twenty-five percent her father and twenty-five percent her mother and fifty percent her grandmother because the mitochondrial (Mt-DNA) is extremely stable. Sexual inheritance is beneficial in expanding the diversity of sexual replication through the father.

But don’t get your dicks hard, you males, and go prepared to impregnate as many women as possible. That would contradict the diversity that enables sexual differentiation to thrive in humans.

This is not necessarily across the board amongst species. In eusocial species that are mostly animals, but there do exist eusocial plants like the staghorn fern, this is completely false and sexual reproduction is carried forth only by breeding pairs.

But then there are a few semi-eusocial species where the breeding period is limited throughout their lives to a particular period within that life. I have mentioned this multiple times in the past, but in these semi-eusocial species especially, the advantage of the female’s breeding life being curtailed by a particular period in their life, beyond the matriarchal organization of its culture is the expansion of the y-DNA into the culture through the inclusion of multiple strands of diversity to prevent the bottleneck sameness of the overall DNA diversification–exactly the opposite of the limitation of DNA of the normally designated advantage of genetic bottlenecking that thrives through normal populations of many eusocial populations.

In other species the dominant male that controls harem (in horses, a very large harem, in lions two or three) is to insure only the very strongest males that can protect the species from attack are enabled to reproduce. But as is the case, lions are unique in this regard amongst felines and several equine species are not dominated by a harem leader.

So the needs of every species’ survival becomes unique in regards to its needs which are necessarily compatible with some of its closest relatives. Comparisons therefore are not necessarily aligned with kin species. They of course cannot be defined only by convergent development. But there is an evolutionary necessity that flight can exist not only in arian species, but in bees and bats not even closely related, and then we have to pause once more.

It is misplaced to say that all arian species fly, though as far as know all arian species do have wings, penguins wings are used for more efficient that is more convergent with swimming slug like sea angles or zooplankton snails, while some fish have evolved with large pectoral fins that enabled sustained short flights and others such as flying gurnards can glide over the water.

The point of all this is that all of our classifications and orderedness of existence is not genetically accurate because of genetic convergence that redefines the classifications by moving between species.

So this brings us to the problem of the harem male conception’s attempt to expand itself into the menopausal species need to remain unbottlenecked because, as I mentioned , beyond the social implications of the grandmother hypothesis if we expand this to the apparent evidence from human genetic evidence of the diminishing y-chromosome diversity and the nearly absoluteness of the mtDNA that can be traced hundreds of thousands of years into the past we can began to reflect why most males did not breed might have been because human evolution just might possibly have been advantaged by inclusion of new y-chromosome diversity into the communities and only the stranger and not the other community members would have been seen as viable sexual mates and such introductions of new males into communities could maintain these variables into the communities.

Now I’m sure our ancestors realized this evolutionary need through simply noticing the effects of mating with kin. Almost all genetic defects are passed on solely through the occasional mutations in the mtDNA which are hardly ever favorable to mankind. If mating becomes dominated by less variables in the y-DNA pool, then these defects become increasingly more dominant in the community.

Now what in the hell does any of this have to do with the work-play conundrum? Quite simply this. Our very intelligent classifications limit our perspectives of intelligent recognition of Schrodinger's cat of trying to classify lifeforms into singular individualities.

If work and play become classified as singular and no longer unified then those that work and those that play (& breed) become separated into classifications of humanity that turns menopausal eusociality into ant-colony like eusociality; the players prey on fellow humans and create cannibalism of one class over another that eats the lesser of his respectability.

This of course leads to the decline of the complex need to seek commonalities in order to survive communally as the microbiomemes in our own bodies enable our bodily systems. By splitting unification into ranks of individuality and ordered dominance become de-unified not just between other humans but between humanity and the sum of life.

By slicing the wedges of the sum into the particulates that cannot singular exist we presume ourselves to be snow leopards almost entirely capable of existing singularly and these myths of heroism and heroic actors defray communities that become unable to sustain themselves in a harmonious manner.

Now I may be wrong of course. You may think I’m more than wrong, you may think this is just a pack of superficial drivelous shit that insults your individual.

Good. It is intended to insult your presumption of individual apartheidness.

But please just reflect on two little riddles of your presumptions.

If you are one, why do you despair of being alone and seek solace in other(s)?

And if there is normalcy to our classifications why through the long years of deciviliation has everyone become content rather than contentious and part B of question why do these organized simplified human communities create such massive longings to escape from them in some way?

And finally, but no need to reflect, a mere self-tautology of my own reflected answers to my own questions, But why in the hell would I need to be with Jesus if we are individual Jesus's ourselves.

(The final paragraph is actually a rephrasing of a question asked of me by Mr. Rohn Kenyatta.)