Trouble Dividing The Sexes

The metaphysics used below is that same metaphysics and ontology used in the book "Seven Eyes Open" (4th Edition).

Logically I may have any predicate "r" positive or not. For God, in the didactic paradigm I have r ∨ ¬r. Then I also only find, that given "r" is positive then I surely have Pos(r)∨¬Pos(¬r). In the dialectic paradigm as of the serpent of Eden, I would have Pos(r)∨¬Pos(r) instead.

The dialectic would then entail Pos(r)∨Pos(¬r) given ¬Pos(r)<=>Pos(¬r) (a simple axiomatic definition). The positivity of "r" is decided.

Yet in the didactic paradigm Pos(r) is always a constant over both sides of the disjunction, ¬r is always negative.

Now it cannot be "healthy" and also logical for a given positive statement to be inconsistent; yet this is the case in the dialectic, for Pos(r) is not didactic and not then "decided by a higher authority", or of "reason", or "obvious nature", or of "necessity", but "r" becomes inconsistent and decided only by a "positive-aesthetic" judgement. ("r" becomes, for lack of a better word, "synthetic", neither true or false, good or bad).

Now, for a boy, it is always good to be a boy, for a girl it is always good to be a girl. For now I may state these are constants to both paradigms, even if a boy believes they are in actuality truly a girl or vice-versa.

I leave it open for logic's sake that if a boy is in actuality found a girl and girls then "dialectically" take the precedence of positivity then it is good for that child to be a girl (and a boy vice versa). (This is logically inconsistent in the didactic paradigm.)

So, in the didactic paradigm I would have it is not good for a boy not to be a boy and not good for a girl not to be a girl. I.e.:

Pos(b)∨¬Pos(¬b) for all boys and Pos(g)∨¬Pos(¬g) for all girls, where b = "this is a boy" and g = "this is a girl".

Now, are these not constants also? It may only be good (in both paradigms as by axiom) for Pos(b)∨Pos(g). Effectively in the dialectic, ¬Pos(b) <=> Pos(g) but who decides this positivity?

If ¬Pos(b) <=> Pos(g) is always correct in the dialectic then Pos(¬b) <=> Pos(g) and so b∨g. Likewise if only ¬b<=>g and b∨g hold in the didactic then there is a division of the sexes and logically one is either a boy or a girl or is stuck in indecision or yet another category (which I ignore for the most part for sake of ease).

So, the sexes are divided, but then in the didactic I only find from the axiomatic Pos(b)∨Pos(g) together with b∨g a need to freely decide the disjunction with the existence of a certain virtue "p" that p&b^-1=>Pos(g) and p&g^-1=>Pos(b). And even then there is forever an empty middle "b&g" leaving only Pos(b&g)^-1 as possible. (Only with the action of virtue in "p".)

I.e. if Pos(b)∨Pos(g) holds with Pos(b)∨¬Pos(¬b)=>¬Pos(g) in the didactic (¬b<=>g), the right side is never positive, a contradiction on Pos(g). Given two such separate and disjoint sets of boys and girls, no "b" for which Pos(b)∨¬Pos(¬b) is true may also be a "g" for which Pos(g)∨¬Pos(¬g) is true. (That virtue "p" I examine a little further later on.)

I.e. Pos(b)∨Pos(g) is a consequence of the division of sets b∨g, not a division of predicates to be freely decided over both sexes; at least, not in the didactic paradigm.

However, in the dialectic I only find Pos(b)∨Pos(¬b)=>Pos(g) applying upon it (as a lemma) the division of the sexes above. But then a truly negative ¬Pos(¬b)=>Pos(g) illegally entails a positive without virtue (as the underlying didactic truth) and the "perceived" disjunction fails in privation, a contradiction as before. Instead, one is only able (in the dialectic) to state that there is no such clear division of the sexes Pos(b)∨¬Pos(¬b) etc., and discard the didactic paradigm completely and with it its logic and the division of the sexes. The boundaries may be thought to be redrawn. For then it is found in the dialectic that; Pos(b)∨Pos(g) from the two disjunctions of:

Pos(b)∨¬Pos(b)=>Pos(g)
Pos(g)∨¬Pos(g)=>Pos(b).

(And not Pos(b)∨¬Pos(¬b) for all boys and Pos(g)∨¬Pos(¬g) for all girls.)

And these two disjunctions are supposedly true over both sexes, but for each sex there is then no clear division of the sexes. Yet again, the dialectic paradigm fails in mutual privation to decide the disjunction. There is also no empty middle, for ¬Pos(b)=>Pos(g) is also equivalent to N¬(¬Pos(b)&¬Pos(g))<=>Pos(b&g) and there is a positive middle found. To sit in the centre to choose seems positive.

So, gender in the didactic paradigm does not fail with mutual privation and there is an empty middle or division of the sexes, and there are no positive properties found in the middle and so there is no similar positive argument for a person to freely decide their sex.

If Pos(b)∨Pos(g) were to hold for each of the sexes with the didactic paradigm then for some other virtue p₀ I may have Pos(p₀&b^-1)=>Pos(g) etc. I.e. it is not ever true that ¬Pos(¬b)<=>Pos(g) - itself an inference failing in privation also, a clear contradiction to b∨g in every didactic sense! I would then have Pos(b)∨¬Pos(¬b)<=>¬Pos(¬g) and only the left hand side is ever positive. (The disjunction is not freely decidable without that virtue p₀.) By symmetry I would have only Pos(g) as well for the other sex. Yet then there is always (plausibly) some compassionate virtue p₀ to reassign gender. This is not impossible for an omnipotent God.

Yet then Pos(b)∨Pos(g) does not hold for each of the sexes as things stand in this current system of things (In the eyes of the God of Jesus Christ anyway, as also with my own.) As proof I merely offer Pos(b)∨¬Pos(¬b) for all boys, say, and the left hand side is always positive and omnipotent God (as in Jesus Christ) has promised no such virtue of any p₀. The disjunction is not freely decided. (It requires a change on a genetic-level in the didactic paradigm with some p₀. I.e. when science gets there, will there be any difference?)

Concerning the choice of gender in the dialectic, given it appears positive in the dialectic for everyone to be able to redraw that line (i.e. Pos(b&g)) concerning anyone's gender; this is become a most illogical outcome if it cannot be equally reversed.

Pos(b)∨¬Pos(b)=>Pos(g) is equal to Pos(b)∨¬Pos(b)<=>¬Pos(¬b) if in didactic terms ¬Pos(¬b)<=>Pos(g) and the sexes are become logically inconsistent, and this for reasons most unnaturally so. The two paradigms should never mix for either's sake.

Now, in the dialectic paradigm there is no need for any such virtue "p" or "p₀" or any division of the sexes and all may be freely redrawn, but this mindset is only to fail in privation. Can the "natural" and didactic ever truly be only madness and trivial to the dialectic? Is it logically inconsistent or is the dialectic paradigm faulty? Only the latter is found of privation and the former consistent in my own opinion, but I do not judge (I am not completely free of the dialectic paradigm either, though my biology does not oppose me and I have no agenda).

Now, concerning that virtue "p" deciding (on division of the sexes) p&b^-1=>Pos(g) and p&g^-1=>Pos(b) in the didactic, I would consider "p" to be as "marriage", i.e. monogamy perhaps, as it ensures an empty middle between roles of gender in the sexes, and a single complimentary unit for two to become as "one flesh" and never to private one another within their marriage, either in gender, in applying "top-down" authority, or otherwise in love. The exceptions to the rule, of privations on necessarily positive requirements of virtue all being unhealthy of course!

So in summary, in the dialectic paradigm a simple model of gender reassignment fails in privation within a disjunction on positive predicates. The didactic paradigm instead offers one solution, a clear division of the sexes, and this is decided not by reassignment but by personal acceptance, for there is no returning from one changed sex to the other with the 100% surety of keeping full reproductive health, as if it could be reversed any number of times. (At least, not until a genetic-level change is available as a benefit of science; I expect God to be far from an ogre to the common sinner at His judgement, but I cannot find scripture for such a "reward", unless it be one purely of compassion.)

The didactic paradigm is stable, consistent and does not so fail in privation. It is logical, natural and healthy to have that division of the sexes. I only state that for those many souls that find it quite unnatural and against their own comfort that they are excused (and excluded) from their creator's paradigm on the basis they chose (and excluded it) for themselves and are able to freely choose their own rewards in their own lives.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page