НАЧАЛО  



  ПУБЛИКАЦИИ  



  БИБЛИОТЕКА  



  КОНТАКТЫ  



  E-MAIL  



  ГОСТЕВАЯ  



  ЧАТ  



  ФОРУМ / FORUM  



  СООБЩЕСТВО  







Наши счётчики

Яндекс цитування

 

      
Институт стратегического анализа нарративных систем
(ИСАНС)
L'institut de l'analyse strategique des systemes narratifs
(IASSN)
Інститут стратегічного аналізу наративних систем
(ІСАНС)



статья

PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM OF SEX

V.Lahetko (Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine)


Sexological literature and wider, psychiatric one has a tradition which even considering the problem of sex as a problem believes it to be a mere medical one in particular a sexological one. And even those scholar who consider themselves natural scientists used to keep to and still keep to this viewpoint. To my mind this viewpoint was largely determined by the fact of people having their consciousness as a means to control their actions. In those instances where, in particular, behaviour is sexual, is out of control (Shakespeare saying, when blood speaks brain is dumb.) this fact is accounted for by an evil or even criminal nature of particular people.

Evidently such a state of things can be considered as the first factor effecting the research of the problem. The second factor is the fact that the intimate sphere of people's relations was always hushed up in Europe and therefore never advertised for a broad public. It is because it is more ''comfortable'' for people to perceive the world not as it is but the one they would like to see it, that is the one it ought to be (idealisation is a feature of consciousness, it's an "expensive" pay for its availability as a means of people's survival).

The nature following the sex reproduction programmed the division of individuals into two sexes, each of them having got its specific function in this process. Males-impregnation, therefore the male organism is formed to be namely such as it is and females giving birth to and the female organism is formed to realise this function. In this sense this time a French surgeon and scholar Ambroiss Pare (XVI century) wrote that ''the sex is nothing else but a difference between a male and female''. Nature thought of an incentive to reproduction too. Sexual needs meeting which turned out to be the strongest natural psychophysical enjoyment became this incentive. So far as it was so, sexual enjoyment became value in itself (therefore) people have sexual intercourse not to continue the human race but to enjoy it, more than that, already with monkeys, not speaking about people, the reproduction process is not limited by certain time (seasons of the year ) frames. But it is later. And at first it was necessary to make representatives of different sexes attractive to each other and for this aim to make representatives of the same sex repulsive to each other. To do this, nature programs homophobia continuation of which or the reverse side of which is heterophilia. There wouldn't exist heterophilia without homophobia and on the contrary, heterophilia envisages homophobia .

Similar considerations conclude that the sex manifesting itself through sexual behaviour of individuals (animals and humans ) is quite natural, therefore it cannot be determined by the society as some literature sources read. The sexual behaviour is predetermined by the sexual instinct which is a two-element creation, i.e. it envisages sexual appetite and sexual organ, the latter's role being functional - to satisfy the sexual appetite and not the contrary - to satisfy the organ.

The family as a social inheritance has passed a long and complicated way of its development from polygamy being the most widespread form of sexual behaviour with the ancient people (matriarchy) to monogamy of patriarchy epoch and up till nowadays. It is a function of the family to continue the human race, the idea of surface - thinking culturologists (moralists) being aware that the illegitimate children are proclaimed socially inadequate. Can we agree with this?

If we look at the world with sober and not ideologically befogged eyes and perceive it as it is we must conclude that the sex difference is the greatest natural difference among people. So it is in this aspect (in the aspect of sex) that the greatest problems should exist and they do exist, it is spontaneous (unconscious) development of nature that determined them. Hehel mentioned that if the man in the process of his creativity not always achieves his desirable objective then how can you demand from nature one hundred per cent success in each concrete case. But we are not interested in Hehel in our routine consciousness.

Albert Moll who in 1897 suggested "sex appetite" to be used as a scientific term in psychiatry understood it as the wish to touch and relax emphasised the psychical side of the matter. In 1919 in his diary Ukrainian writer V.Vynnychenco already interpreted the social-psychological aspect of the phenomenon, not guessing about the presence of the notion ''sex appetite'' as a scientific term and therefore used the notion ''love'' including the meaning of ''sex appetite'' into the notion ''love''. I'll make a somewhat broader extract from this definition: love (passion) is a cry of blood, it is an unthinking, invincible, hunger of body, it's an order of eternity which doesn't allow any resistance. Passion devours itself like a fire and after it has been satisfied it leaves tedious, grey ashes after itself. Love is growing in, it is percolation to the most intimate corner by each other . Love comes late after passion , after its orgies, after thirstry cries and savage wild whisper of thirst it walks softly, noiselessly, with a careful look, mysterious smile. Passion is blind, wild with dilated nostrils, twisted fingers it rushes at everything that can satisfy it. One can feel passion simultaneously to two, three, five, so many it has enough body and fire strength for .

One can love simultaneously only one. One can grow only in one soul and only one soul can receive the whole being , to the very end. Passion comes at once in one moment and may leave you so suddenly and unexpectedly. Love comes slowly, with suffering , routine trou-bles, in the dust of everyday adventures, it comes unnoticed, becomes the host and leaves you with difficulties in pain, with death. Passion loves only itself and for itself when the sufferings of the beloved give enjoyment, the love will seek for only sufferings of the beloved. Love gives itself for the beloved. Sufferings of the beloved excludes any joy for the loving. Love is blossom producing a rare fruit - love. Without blossom there is no fruit, but blossom is not fruit, and not every blossom turns, into fruit. Thousands of loves are shedding off, wither, having not managed to get into blossom to the grains of love (magazine "Kyiv". No. 10.1990. pp. 108-109).

The extract is rather long, but this phenomenon, this ''sex appe-tite" is worth of thinking of it once again, what is it ?

One can conclude that nature exercises its trouble of continuing the human race through changeability and polygamy of sex appetite. The more changeable the appetite, the more contacts , the more impregnations, the more births. Sometimes one can hear the idea of wastefulness of nature: in spring for example, cherries are covered with blossoms, as spilled with milk and not every blossom gives a berry. It is not wastefulness but foresight because there exists infertility too. It's about cherries, and people have many other acting factors. The changeability of "sex appetite" and its polygamy designates particular people with the moral brand of human nature detriment. It's because of non-understanding the sense of the problem. It's of long standing that somebody speaks the most convincingly about that of which, he (or she) has the least idea.

The problem of changeability and polygamy of "sex appetite" is the first thing that determines the sex problem as philosophical.

Masturbation is the second as to its incidence. According to the Polish sexologist K. Imelinsky 95% males and 75% 'females have their own experience what concerns masturbation. While at the beginning of our century psychiatry treated this phenomenon as an anomaly in the human psychic development, nowadays psychiatry treats it as a means to relax a sexual stimulation, an elementary form of sexual satisfaction. We'd only like to add that monkeys masturb too (it's interesting what "social requirement" makes them to do so?). So, this is also a natural phe-nomenon, You only marvel at some researchers who discard the animal world as a criterion to understand the human physiology, lulling our consciousness with the influence of social-psychological factors (of the type "I came, you weren't there, you deceived me, you let me down"), that undoubtedly influence the human form of sex relations called passion by us but which don't determine it in any case. Both animal physiology and human, physiology remain the same, natural. When a person is hungry and there is no knife and fork nearby, but only a piece of boi-led meat he (or she) will eat it not taking care of the human etique-tte. When a person gets sexually excited in an overcrowded public transport vehicle they will discharge there not waiting for a suitable place and time.

The third item determining the sex problem as philosophical is the presence of the so-called deviations from norm in the sexual be-haviour of people, as well as animals, we'll add, which again determines the sex problem as merely natural. The modern sexopathology is based on these "deviations". The most widespread deviation is homosexualism, which conventionally exists in "male" (pederasty) and "female" (lesbianism) forms.. According to German investigators, every 100 humans inc-lude 4-6 homosexuals, one lesbian per four pederasts. So, what is it? K. Imelinsky answers the question straight forward, that he doesn't know, believing it to belong to "nontraditional" deviations (1986). Sincerity in sexology is the most important research method. We are reli-eved by the fact that it concerns not only some patients but investigators as well, though not all of them.

In order to explain this phenomenon one must pay attention to the philosophic principle of the unity of matter which is a unity of oppositions having obligatory an intermediate link between them (Aristotle wrote about this as early as the fourth century B.C.) which ensures the continuity of development process and the role of which may be played by the thing combining the features (properties) of both oppositions. And it is not incidental and not a deviation in the development process but its (of matter) law, what was overlooked by Hehel in his time and what he called "feebleness" of nature. For example, macro-and-micro-world are united by electron due to the fact that it has properties of both substance and field (contrary types of matter). Females and males are united by homosexual, because due to the attraction he (she) is a female or male, and due to the or-gan- male or female. To my mind, people-are quite right speaking abo-ut pederast as females in male packing and lesbians as males in fe-male packing. Sometimes homosexuals are called a third sex but it is an evident delusion. There is not any third sex attraction but fema-le and male one, nor any third, sex organ, but male and female one. Freud's desert before science is that, that he was bold enough to call a spade a spade. That is the sexual behaviour of people is determined in the first line, by the sexual appetite, and not the sexual organ. Therefore idea of the 20-th century American philosopher E. Fromm, who calling himself neofreudist claims that so far as the male and female sex organs correspond to each other then sharing a bed may occur with anyone sound as a nonsense. It would be true in the case if the sexual behaviour were determined by the sexual appetite then in the principle "the principle" spoken of by E.Fromm can't occur.

So the reason of homosexualism lies in the necessity of an intermediate link in the sex sphere (as decisive for nature) the role of which these people are doomed to perform. That is homosexualism exits only because of the fact that there is heterosexualism which envisages homosexualism as an intermediate link between sexes .

The dramatic character of the situation consists in the fact that this phenomenon concerns everybody because homosexuals don't give birth to the like (as it was believed by Voltaire in the 18-th century), they don't give birth to anybody at all! Homosexuals are born by ordinary females who are impregnated by ordinary males. Sometimes a tragedy in this or that particular family occurs due to incomprehension of the nature (in this case we can call it fatality) of this phenomenon and, its incomprehension due to homophobia, when either parents suddenly! get to know that their son (daughter) is homosexual or father - parent turns out to be homosexual what would evidently be an astonishment for children. It occurs because some homosexuals try to "run away" from themselves not to be a "white crow" for the surrounding people (homophobes). They get married, have even children but cannot get rid of that that is not allowed to them by nature. Besides this "deviation" there exists still pedophilia (sexual intercouse with young children, herontophilia (sexual, affair with senile people), zoophilia (with animals), necrophilia (with corpses) and so on. Pedophilia and herontophilia can be explained by continuity in age separation. Zoophilia by the principle of unity of everything alive, necrophilia by the principle of organic and nonorganic nature. All these deviations in strict comprehension are not deviations in the sexual behaviour of people, because a heterosexual will never according to their own will try homosexualism, pedophilia, herontophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia etc.

Therefore we can conclude that there is no one norm in sexual behaviour: each sexual group has their own norm of sexual behaviour and this norm is programmed by nature, all this ensuring its (of nature) unity and continuity of development and rejuvenation in generations.

The fourth may be mentioned hermaphroiditism as a blind alley link in the sexual development of a person. If in the vegetative world existence of bisexual plants is justified by their corresponding functions realisation the human turned out a too complicated system to remain at the level of vegetative development. The material the nature gives to form the sex organ in hermaphrodites is distributed between two organs (male and female)therefore both of them are simply underformed, and are not able to perform the sexual function, and so far as sexual appetites (male and female ) are mutually destroyed, that is these people are indifferent in sexual aspect, there is no need for it. The "experiment" of nature utterly failed.

All the above things suggest that the evident thing is not always a known thing, therefore one oughtn't to hurry with evaluations but first of all it is necessary to determine the necessity (the reason) of existence of this or that phenomenon (incredible). To do this on the basis of the accumulated knowledge of sexology is not possible, therefore a "break - through'' is necessary. Unbiased viewpoints are of great importance to do this.

It goes without saying we have touched only some aspects (manifestation forms) of the sexual behaviour of humans but the problem is delineated and proclaimed and it provokes a cardinal overview of the previous (existing) viewpoints of the sexual behaviour, of humans and in a broader aspect , at the sphere of sex in general.

Thus, a comprehension of sexual relations requires determining such notions as value of sexual pleasure in itself, homophobia, heterophilia, changeability and poligamy of sexual appetite, its decisive role in sexual behaviour, masturbation as an elementary form of sexual satisfaction, a means of relaxation from sexual excitement, different varieties of the norm in sexual behaviour of people, hermaphroditism as a blind - alley branch in the sex sphere. Without modern understanding of these notions the sex education of people will continue to remain rather a good wish but not a chance not speaking of reality and with-out a purposeful sex education (spontaneity people pay their hopes up-on causes more harm than solves the problem) of the young people det-rimental is the very educational process and not human nature because it is a nature and not well thought - out engineering system.

nationalvanguard



 

   
вверх  Библиография г. Ивано-Франковск, Группа исследования основ изначальной традиции "Мезогея", Украина


Найти: на:
Підтримка сайту: Олег Гуцуляк goutsoullac@rambler.ru / Оновлення 

  найліпше оглядати у Internet
Explorer 6.0 на екрані 800x600   |   кодування: Win-1251 (Windows Cyrillic)  


Copyright © 2006. При распространении и воспроизведении материалов обязательна ссылка на электронное периодическое издание «Институт стратегических исследований нарративных систем»