“It’s him or me!” screams the betrayed lover.
The widespread practice of writing and/or denounces a mass ignorance (from an American source). In principle, the « or » includes the « and », so there is no need to underline it. The reason is, that in practice, when one choice excludes the other, the context suggests it. In logic (the code of law of deductive reasoning), but not both should be mentioned when one choice excludes the other (throwing things screaming also does the trick). The logistics of infidelity are silent on the option ‘or both’ precisely because of the context.
Male or Female?
Biologist and philosopher, François Jacob noticed that bisexual reproduction is ensured by an organ of which, each individual possesses only one part, which obliges them to spend time and energy to find the other compatible hal f. This is true in the exercise of reproduction, not simply sex. We procreate by union of the different. She possesses a sex that is not mine, and vice versa, and the slavery of her by him has been instituted around the distinctive organs. Giving birth and raising children seemed to be the mission of women since the first bungalow-caves. Women were assumed to be different in essence. The woman would be emotional, patient, fragile, irrational — patati et patata. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is infamous for the details (see The Seven Sins of Capital). For more than a century, a political struggle has turned this game of yin-yang into political ping-pong. In a world of condom sex or ejaculation outside the vagina, where reproduction is being laboratorized, any sexual dispute is embarrassing. It is necessary to effeminate the image of men and virilize that of women because in society, man or woman (note the « or »), are a citizen (asexual). We can change sex and remain the same citizen.
Is it good to see a love relationship reduced to a bi-egoist sexual act with fucking friends (the lovers fast food version)?
Why does the Giraffe have such a Big Neck?
Great questions, Jacob notes; have never produced the expected fruits (at worst they have formed sects) while simple astonishment has produced great enlightenment.
Why wonder about the giraffe’s neck in particular? One must understand the astonishment of nineteenth-century naturalists. If a six-foot shoulder-length man were molded into a giraffe format, he would have a six-foot long neck. Imagine him with the nose of an elephant!
Africa has surprised us plenty with its unusual animals, at least in the eyes of the European. When I asked my students the question about the giraffe’s neck, the answer is always: « so they could eat the leaves from the tall branches ». Which doesn’t explain anything! Basketball players don’t make themselves taller in order to play. Cultural practices do not directly alter the genetic code of parents or their children. Charles Darwin understood that the giraffe’s neck is the result of selection, not adaptation. In humans, small males reproduce less often (not just because of basketball). That’s what happened to giraffes with small necks.
The Mind of the Buddha
There are two sexes, but one life. Two partners, but one child. Two hearts, but one love. Two beings, but one couple. Two opponents, but one fight.
“Buddha is and is not the mind,” announces the Zen monk to his disciples worried about the strangeness of the enigma.
Everyone silently assumes the relevance of questioning the master when a gust of wind makes the shutter of a window slam. Two disciples hasten to put the latch back in place. Yet only one monk is needed for the task. Once the incident is over, everyone waits for the teaching to resume. This makes the master smile, for whom nothing was interrupted.
“How many of you are needed to fix a shutter?” he asks.
“Only one, » replied the congregation in a heartbeat.
“Were your two companions right to get up to fix this shutter?” he continued.
“Yes, » answered the disciples, some of them embarrassed.
“Yet one of them was wrong. Which one?”
“But they both got up at the same time, » remarked one disciple.
“Correct, » answered the master. Even if my reason suggests that one of them is wrong, each individual is right. Buddha is and is not mind (it’s one or the other!).