🚀 go-pugleaf

On a more speculative venue, it can be postulated an intermediate step
in man s evolution while Man loses body hair, when percheron like
calves were norm in the species female. (This idea idea comes from a
personal observation of how attractive are certain kind of furry
boots). This step would still generate atavic feelings of attraction
and can be justified as a lingering but lost secondary sexual
characterstic. As a species s trait it would provide an advantage to
shore wading while picking up moluscs, as it would protect from
parasites not present in deeper water swimming, for a dichotomous
female forager / male fisher. The environmental change that prompted
protoprimates out of the woods/jungle into body waters allows for a
time spent at the shore. Seafood is abundant but not enough to sustain
the species, so the adventure into water begins. Considering that this
evolution took place in a relatively small and constrained area, an
equilibrium would be reached in a schedule going from the jungle into
the water, woth relative safety at the shore. Males losing body hair
would get swimming advantages over slower fatty fish, while relatively
hairier female would get a slight advantage from protecting calves
from parasites. Selective pressure finds a compromise in hairy female
calves and male nude calves, with some variation in between. Later on
man s success depletes the original water body of slow shore fish
exchanging them for quicker deep species (this would be true of both
lakes and seas), while easy to pick moluscs would also be depeted
forcing more females into deeper water, but also into the woods again.
Some primitive symbiosis between man and sharks would have its origin
during this age that may have lasted some  millions of years. Calves s
hair would be lost completely by the time fish hunting gets relatively
more difficult than fruits/nuts picking, introducing the wedge that
molds male and female bodies differently, particularly strength...

He, he, microwave-insulation ceramic insulated helmet would close the
telepathic channel... for particular individuals.

Two places, just come suddenly with hysteria to tell me to get out.
**Time to go**. I though customer was king! Even call the police! Any
employee can shout and be rude, while I am thinking (or dozing),
because there is no other place to be... A car with black windows
passes by followed by a chain of patrols... Another old man looking
like, guess who, the father of, appears with a smiley face, just
before I am prompted to leave with half a cake and half a coffee...
Now I have to find a place to sleep the rest of the day.

Church/police (or inversed, criminals) dont want me to research,
right? Because they have older higher knowledge? Really!

(copy of post above)
On Feb 24, 8:12 am, "Fabrizio J Bonsignore"
<djbonsign...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 The binomium telepathy-schizophrenia has to be understood as a
system  similar to that of the speech system. It would consist of
four  components: reception (ear), emission (mouth), potency (lungs)
and  processing (brain). Deaf people dont learn to speak, even if they
can  emit noises, not all hearers speak, though normally non deaf
people do  speak and learn to do so in a relatively short time.
Telepathy would  be essentially a trained, learned ability once any of
the several ear  systems has developed or opens up for the first time.
For verbal  communications self-feedback would be the sign that a
schizo has
 learned _speech_, so while transmitting, the schizo ear would get
feedback of the speech emmited; this would not be true of other, low
level, messages. This doesnt imply though that a brain is
transmitting  while the person has not developed what we call
schizophrenia, and  there is no guarantee that both directions will be
developed or  developed at the same time, that is, some telepaths are
schizos while  some schizos wont learn to telepath, giving rise to
different  classifications that are missing in normal psycopathology
definitions  and practice. Potency would be then an altogether
phenomenon, linked  to processing in the case of the schizo ear,
linked to brain neural  configurations in the case of speech, the
field of telepathic carriers  (what has been historically called
aura), though telepathy being a
 matter of encodings would also be affected in its outward potency by
the coherence of the emitted signal (concentration). That both sides
of the communication system are somewhat dissasociated leaves a big
ground for intermediate brain processing connecting them in diverse
and even strange ways, some effects seemingly being automatic, others
 totally voluntary and under control of the individual, which would
be  the origin for the several ears, for different conditionings.
Looks like a lost another day... my internal count says today should
be Friday, not Saturday. Wouldnt  be the first time I suspect I was
 given sedatives in McDonalds coffee.

Another problem with the n-fixed rule is that if a more-than-n
situation is accepted, then the rule can be increased to n + 1. But if
it can be increased to n + 1, then there is no reason why it should
not be increased to n + m! And if it can be increased to an
indeterminate n, adding flexibility, then there is no reason to keep
the rule fixed, it is enough to let the human system reach equilibrium
by itself. In terms of the hidden argument, if a _possible_ n + 1
relation is allowed, then it cannot be established if the rule is
being respected or not, so enforcers self defeat and the rule is
defeated, its limit can be increased so the rule is useless, therefore
no flexibility can be allowed. Having, say, a close female relative
in
close contact besides the lawful number of relation(ship)s is
equivalent to the enforcers to allow a +1 relation(ship) since
enforcers can be deceived by it, unless, of course, they can monitor
it closely. The corner solution is a concentration camp, though other
intermediate solutions are possible, the army and draft being one of
them.

Allowing everybody to become an enforcer turns the rule into an
indeterministic race condition where enforcers take decisions on
somebody else s application of the rule. Here enforcers are not rule
bound, but rule free, as managers, engaging in more than n relations
during the, assumedly time costly, process of redistributing people to
implement the rule. Of course an enforcers-enforcing-enforcers
situation would be called for, ad infinitum, unless this permission be
granted, otherwise, any _excess_ of women would have to be
_disposed_of_ immediately in order to keep the rule enforced globally
at the enforcers level, again considering that less than n is within
the rule and above n renders the rule irrelevant. This amounts to
kinapping, murder, genocide, under this logic. There is an obvious
incentive to become an enforcer under _those_ circumstances,
particularly if, because of generation - 1 management arrangements the
enforcers are still in their slot 0, so to speak, ready to enter into
marriage relation(ship)s, that is, they grew up and are kept (through
misery and poverty), as lonely males, a situation that in ethological
terms is equivalent to act as beta males. Enforcers would pose as
alpha-males, but then all beta-males would bid to become alpha males!
This is equivalent to a retroggresion to animal instictivity beyond
human reasonable solutions. The end result is a state of generalized,
diffuse violence.

Fabrizio J Bonsignore now and ALWAYS Danilo J Bonsignore