People like to type online, but I haven't been a fan of it lately. Gracián says to be prudent, and I don't have any other oracle's works that explain how to contain and focus oracular reasoning available (other than, perhaps, Sei Shonagon's works, which are too beautiful for me to consider lately). As far as I know, only theirs have survived. Though there's a big question of whether or not Gracián's texts had been politically usurped, as I suspect they had been. It doesn't matter. I think he wrote to a different audience. Where was the internet then? Nobody liked to type as much as we do during Gracián's time because they presumably hadn't even heard of it! So, prudence? Based on Gracián's own texts, which themselves occasionally defy rational prudence, I'm no longer so sure that prudence is as honorable a virtue as people had pretended it to be - or even now pretend it to be for that matter. If they do at all. I do, at least; although only speciously so.
In other words, I could start being more expressive and share whatever it is that falls into my head. Especially now that I'm completely over stoicism and its destructive patterns. Usually I only share things that I surprise myself by being able to reason completely using data available to anyone, though if I were to draw a logical map of how I get where I conclude it would take more time and resources than are available to me. So generally I don't, other than to myself if I think to write it out (almost never). I don't discuss anything I can't reason logically to myself using what I know about logic. I'm a former law clerk, so I have some experience with logic, professionally speaking at least - for what that's worth. I like to be careful so I don't think myself into actual insanity (entirely possible). I can certainly tolerate a little silly though for the lols. Anyway, I figured that if I'm surprising myself, maybe someone else will be surprised. Though I also sort of don't care what I'm typing about, which is another reason I don't share too often. I'm not interested in most of what falls into my head the way it does. It's been disruptive lately, to say the least. So there's a little resentment there, too.
Sometime over 600,000 years ago, but definitely not sooner (seems closer to 700,000 than 600,000), something informed what is now an indiscernible (visually and behaviorally, at least) subset of humanity's genome to develop differently from the available methodologies of human development today. The information that was carved out by evolution was an ability to alter sex at will. Will is such a strange term. It's not accurate, but I'm using it anyway because that ability also related to a different social environment with motivations that don't quite approximate the "will" that we experience now. When humanity evolved this out, it didn't evolve knowledge of it out. Accordingly, everyone seems to experience varying intensities of natural desires for their bodies to alter in this way. These motivations may arise as abundantly in one's internal experience as they may in their external experience. That is, some people possess an aggressive desire to procreate because this desire intensifies for them externally rather than internally. On the other hand, some people seemingly cannot understand why it is that they can (no longer, subconsciously, at least) alter their sex. And of course everything in between and outside of that. Like any motivation, it can be quelled or fed to any degree, the success of which relates to verisimilitude.
(This part is opinion) Now here we are evolving again, but this time we're smarter because we have toys that alter genes all over the place. Anyway, without these toys, I think a natural extension of humanity is the development of the ability for any human to create offspring spontaneously "at will" (again, not quite "will"). I do mean any human; and it's only an ability - a choice, so to speak (though it's not really "choice" either - for example, we know how being ourselves is not a choice once we are already ourselves. Instead we can just change how we interact with our environments, including our bodies. But how are we not ourselves, right?). It wouldn't require changing "sex," I think (sex in a biological sense is not real anyway; it's only what we can observe, which tends to provide less than 100% accuracy in any scientific result). Instead, I think it would be that anyone could simply induce the conditions for their body to make space and gadgetry available for offspring (if need be) and then to inform the body to create a subset of temporary genes that the body can introduce to the space for germination, whether they are what we now refer to as "opposing" genes or not. Completely non-sexual reproduction; so much more efficient and gentler on bodies, I think. Sounds like the saddest advertisement ever. Fortunately, again, we have toys. :3 Not sex toys! I mean the ones I mentioned earlier!
Anyway, it's illustrative of the following: Continuing a path of otherness through the identification of biological sex makes no discernable sense to my relative super-consciousness and has no rational basis in any recognizable human logical construct. That's less of an opinion statement than it reads. It approximates fact based on my understanding of how humanity interprets logic, including how logical capacity propounds from the relationship between the consciousness and its relative super-consciousness, as informed by the data available within the subconscious, as far as I'm aware of the topics - and I'm quite aware of them (that part is opinion). I think (opinion) when people stop recognizing body parts as a data point to be categorized their bodies will change to accommodate the conditions required by their social construct as we have today and as any species on this planet seems always to have had. Without scientific intervention, I suspect that such concepts will not exist for all that much longer - maybe only another 200,000 years if the speed of the past change is a reliable indicator (it's probably not). With scientific intervention, we could probably accelerate change that by a factor of 20,000 or so. Probably not recommended, but I don't know much about genetics. Isn't that stuff supposed to be set it and forget it?
