THE RUTTING MAN ________________________ Definitions: Symbiotic: that which works together for the common good of all Symbiont: an individual animal or plant that works with others for the common good of both Parasite: that which feeds on something else for its own sake Note bene The use of the word 'Man' is for authoring convenience only. It most surely includes 'Woman'. The human animal/creature we call 'Man' is a product/consequence of a plasma (or electric) universe. A plasma is a sequence of electrical events from which the universe appears to be constructed (with observable evidence). How, we do not know. Nor, do I believe, is it really necessary to know. It is a given; we are here. No one can explain electricity in any meaningful terms but plasma can be seen at certain times (lightning, for example) and demonstrated in a laboratory. There is no reason for constructs of any sort of 'god' to explain things (these lie in the belief of beliefs where observable evidence is not necessary). K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple, Silly unless one wants to remain is a state of stasis. Life, the universe and everything, is a state of change, it can be observed every day; it is a continuum Nothing stays the same every day, minute or second or even part of a second. Man invented 'time', nature did not, it just is. Life is dynamic, not static. We 'know' that Man (so called and as differentiated from other animals only by virtue of a supposed 'elitism' that was invented by him through some necessity to explain his being on this planet at all) is an electro-chemical being (plants and all 'life forms' are also included). 'Man' does not need a 'gravitational' explanation of the universe, with all its accounts of 'black holes', 'dark energy' and all the other clap-trap to justify its existence; as 'gravitation' is a 'weak' force. This is 'basic' science. Thus it is unable to explain what is happening in 'Nature'. Gravitational models of the universe are mathematical. Mathematical models do not survive real sensory observations. 'Nature' is what happens (despite anything), not what one might imagine happens, observing 'Man-made' rules/theories or otherwise. Like bacteria, 'Man' survives because he is here; replicating and changing. If forms of life can be replicated in a 'human' laboratory, then it could have occurred, equally well as a sort of random happening (random in Human terms). This precludes that there is no such this as any 'divine providence' or some amorphous omniscience who deemed that this would happen according to its 'will' or intent. Gods are inventions created through ignorance (lack of data); yet at the same time, they may be necessary for the 'human' animals who have the ability (for whatever reason) to be able to conceive them in the first place. Ignorance as a lack of data, is not a denigration. Beliefs are manifestations of ignorance driven to various degrees of importance by those who would use them to control others. The major 'success' in even being able to produce such a creature as 'Man' rests with the star we call the 'Sun'; hence its worship from the beginning of time when 'Man' discovered that it affected his life in terms of survival. However, the sun, of course, is only a particular point in the universe. All animals/plants (as defined by human animals) direct their attention to their survival. That is their nature. It wasn't 'designed', it was what the universe did (reasons unknown and probably unknowable). There is/was no choice in the matter. Most people, seem to think there is a 'purpose' to/for their existence. This is borne from early notions of what we call 'primitive' as to:  "What on earth was going on?" Basically, nothing on that plane (purpose). Life is what it is and there is no explanation; nor need there be. That's because it just happened as part of what the universe was. So what is the point of 'worrying' about it or trying to explain it? Frankly, no point at all. It is an academic exercise. I do not believe there is a purpose to anything. We are born. We live. We die. That's it. Why should there be more? What's the point of anything else except survival? All animals are the same in this respect. All plants are the same in this respect. Why should there be a purpose in all this? Why need there be a purpose? Frankly, there is no reason. Other plants and animals don't ask these questions do they? (Well they may do in their own way!) Why do we feel the need to prove there is a purpose? Proof, itself, is of course, a continuum. That is, the can be no absolute Proof, only proofs. But as a continuum changes, or drifts forwards or backwards these proofs themselves will change. What, I might be asked, is the purpose of/for living then? The answer is obvious: there is no reason except that we are here and survival (one way or another) is what we do. There is no question about it. This is what we do, I repeat. Survival is built into us, (however that is), we don't consider this (and contemplate at length) when we are confronted by a peril, we just act and that's it. The fact that 'Man' has concocted all these fairy stories/myths to 'explain' his existence means nothing to the universe. The invention of gods to satisfy our need to explain our existence means nothing to the universe as a whole. The notion of all 'Man's' inventions of time, distance, length, breadth and so on has no relevance to the universe; these are inventions of 'clever' minds but nothing else. That is not to say they are not useful; they were inventions which aid our evolution (positive or negative). The universe is change. That's what plasma does it changes according to what is happening to it at a particular period of motion (time)/state. You cannot make a plasma (even as 'life' itself) not change. That is what is does, without (Man's) intervention. (Yes, it can be manipulated in a laboratory but that is not the point, here) So-called 'Man' is not an unique animal. 'Man' is only a consequence of suitable adaptability to a climate (whatever that is). 'Man's' genius at 'technology' is no different from the ability of certain ants to produce ant-hills, bees to produce hives or fish to be 'schools' or other sea creatures to become corals. The ('human') notion that they ('humans') are superior to other animals is spurious at the very least. You have to ask yourself, why?  'Human' animals are subject to the far worse 'technologies' of viruses than they are to much else, even given their capabilities of destroying millions of their own kind in one fell swoop. Thus, I believe than the 'human' animal is much more of a plague upon the planet (as a living entity) than anything else. No other animal destroys like the 'human' one. For every 'bad' bacteria, there is a 'good' bacteria; thus all survive and work together/against each other to create some sort of balance. That is what they do. It's called symbiosis. What has the universe got to do with 'Man' the animal as something 'special'? Nothing. In seeing the 'planet' Earth (as we capitalise it) and even the notion of 'planet' as a separate entity from the overall universe (as we also call it), what have we?  A lump of electrically charged rock in a medium we do not really understand. In a 'galaxy' of 'galaxies', this little planet is nothing. If a supposed god created this little planet out of billions of others, why did this anthropomorhised 'He' deem it different from others? The notion is simplistic. It is as simplistic as supposing that one group of people on this 'planet' are more important than anyone else. In the beginning, we do not know. In the end, we do not know. In the interim, we are here. What we make of the interim is up to us, dependent on our personal survival skills. I do not believe that Man is such a sophisticated animal as he might believe. I believe that the creature Man is like a bacteria on the planet, divided into a continuum between what we call 'good' and 'bad'; that is, between that which is symbiotic to the planet and that which is not. That which tends to survival and that which does not. When something is not symbiotic, it is parasitic; that is, it lives off something else (host) with no good fortune for the host. Man has invented concepts/ideas of what we call the qualities, viz. beauty, justice, morality and so forth, each of these also a continuum. Note the word 'invented'. These things do not occur in nature, they are constructs of the human mind; they are not 'discovered'. To survive, Man developed certain rules by which he lived/lives for symbiotic relationships with the world (survival). These rules are also a continuum, which change as development takes place. They are not static, they are living rules (they are 'alive'), they change as the environment changes. As I said in another essay, rules are not 'laws'. Rules derive from symbiosis not moral or other constructs. Laws are created for control, not symbiosis. Control is designed for just that, not for symbiosis. Thus the controller is a parasite upon the symbiote. What has happened in the world, for some strange reason, is that the parasites seem to have taken over and been allowed to as though the controlled (symbiotes) are no longer able to control the controllers (parasites). This is strange but true, (apparently). It's as though the symbiote's immune system has broken down in some way to allow the parasites to take control. One of Man's 'problems' is that he doesn't seem to be able to cull himself as other species do.  Most creatures reach a limit of survival before they naturally deflate their numbers. They reach a 'point of return', which Man doesn't. I have no idea what the 'point of return' (if there is one) is for Man as animal and it is possible that we may be arriving at a 'point of no return'. Parasites are not the majority, it is the symbionts. However, if the symbionts do not do something, they may well be outnumbered and eventually will be denigrated to a life not worth living, since their immune systems will be so broken that they have no will to survival and will die out. This will not help the parasites because if the symbionts die out, the parasites will have no-one to feed upon. These notions may be looked at in Man's terminology as opposed to nature's, which has no moral values (or any others). Nature doesn't mind either way. Nature is symbiotic. It works as it does, no intervention necessary. 'Doom and gloom' is a Man-made concept. It does not exist in Nature (how the world is because it is here as we observe it). Like any creature, Man has feelings. Feelings are part of our electro-chemical make-up. Feelings are reactions to stimuli. Amoeba (the simplest single-celled creatures) react to stimuli. What Man has done is to elevate these feelings into what are calls emotions. But emotions are not feelings, they are manifestations of feelings. However, Man has again, elevated emotions beyond the feeling stage and has attributed to them something that is not there. On this basis, he has created /invented all sorts of ritualistic practices that he believes are truths. It is important to note that Truth is a concept of Man, it does not occur in Nature. Truth (like any quality, as already stated) is a continuum from one point to another. Therefore, as Plato was aiming at saying (Forms) was that there is no Ultimate Truth (capital 'T'), there can be no such thing but only a varying degree of truths (lower case 't'). He believed that it was Man's place to strive for the Ultimate and that, indeed, is a means to survival in an unknown future. Striving is the way forward. How one does this is for the individual to decide for his own personal survival. I would think that Man's ability to invent things may well be his salvation or downfall. Inventions fall between two categories: those that increase survival levels and those that don't. It's up to individuals to determine which. Our major problem as survivalists, if you are one of these creatures (and some people aren't for various reasons) is to determine what is or what is not good for our personal particular survival given the circumstances under which we are born into this 'world'. 'Our personal survival' does not preclude others of our circle. Survival is a group thing, whether it is one person, two persons or more; remember we are symbiotic (which includes parasites as well because they feed off each other!). Man seems to have gone to extraordinary lengths to justify his existence on this planet; mostly to the detriment of everything else, flora or fauna. Why this should be, I have no idea. However, the results may be catastrophic. At the end of that catastrophe, Nature won't care. It does what it does without help or hindrance. Species come and go, whatever they are. If atomic war is the answer to Man's culling, then so be it, Nature doesn't care, it will survive in some other form. What is really important, in my view, is that we survive our own 'fate'. That we view our lives as worth something to live, that we remain symbiotic, not parasitic. That we enjoy what we have been provided with. For many, this may be a hard task because we have let parasites take over our symbiosis. That, clearly has to be something we need to address (as they say). You should be the only person in your head. The parasites of what we call 'society' (those that feed off others to their own ends) do not like change. If things change, they are no longer able to function fully, or properly (in terms of survival). They always rely on a host which they can control. Therefore, parasites are controllers. Change is anathema to them. Therefore, also, parasites are their own worse enemy. They are not intelligent. Intelligence is not 'clever' (whatever that means). Intelligence is the ability to absorb data from the world through the senses available and to process this data in a positive way for survival. It is the ability to extrapolate (at any given time) what may occur in the future with a reasonable amount of success for survival. This extrapolation is then subject to change as new data becomes available. In the long run, parasites feed so much on the host that the host dies and the parasite along with it, since it has no survival mechanism of its own. Life is like an analogue movie film. (Any number) of frames can represent a change from one thing to another. An analogue film is made of discrete separate frames. They can each be seen as a separate picture but each separate picture is not the film, it is only an instant. What seems to be happening is that when we like a particular picture this is stripped from the film and ritualised as a significant it becomes the reality. Thus, the photograph is not the event, it is only a very small part of the continuum of the event. It represents nothing but an instant. Whilst it may be pleasant to look upon this as a thing of beauty (or whatever), it is only a tiny part of the reality. Realising this is fine. When you start to live your life according to this event, therein lies the danger. What I am saying is that trying to make life static (a still frame) is not the road to survival, even for parasites but they know no better since they do not have the intelligence of a dynamic host. Many people appear to be the victim of their willingness to make the universe/world as static as possible. They do not want events, they want an event. For them it is a clockwork world; a linear world. This make sense to a parasite/controller but not, of course those symbionts who wish to survive to the best of their ability in a perhaps hostile environment (Nature's environment, not Man's). Thus the Men-as-parasites, will take the still frame from Life's movie and ritualise it for their own purposes. Rituals tend to stagnate human growth. The greater the ritual (for example, a religion), the greater the stagnation and the greater the entrenchment of the ritual with consequential bigotry (the anathema of natural change).  The notion of ritualisation is quite difficult. I believe that ritualisation may also be a continuum. That is, there is not Absolute or Ultimate Ritual but small rituals. If one believes in an Absolute then one never attains it unless one works towards it. It is never achievable but you try to achieve it in small steps. Only small, considered steps (intelligence as defined above) will lead to a goal. There is nothing incorrect or 'wrong' (value judgements) about rituals, we perform them every day and some for our survival (cleaning/sharpening the spear before the day's hunting etc.). It is when the parasite attaches itself to the ritual that we begin to find problems. The parasite will feed off the ritual and milk it for all it is worth using any tools it deems necessary; sometimes towards its own detriment).  The busy host, seeking survival will do his praying (or whatever) and be off. Okay to pray to the sun for rising in the morning but this can't go on all day, the harvest has to be gathered. Not so for the not-so-busy (lazy) host. Here the parasite will attach itself (quite happily) and the host becomes the slave of the parasite. It is very sad that all this parasitism is happening to Man but the evidence is all around us. Our immune systems seem to have been given a knock in an incorrect direction. However, since there is no 'driving force' for our existence anyway (apart from our relationship to the whole universe), it may not be surprising at all. I said earlier: 'For them it is a clockwork world; a linear world.' Again, parasites require such a place to practice their own particular form of art. However, it is not a linear world. The world is crinkly. Anyone who enjoys the notion of Chaos science will know this. As I said in my little volume: 'Song of the Scribe': "No leaf stays in the same place twice." If you look close enough, no straight line can ever be straight. You may aim at perfection but it depends on the material with which you draw the straight line, the edge which you use and the medium upon which you draw it. So many variables... The only answer, in my view is to cease to 'globalise' anything. It's called a level of existence, a level of awareness. If one wishes to survive in the here and now then one must look to oneself to perform this feat. Survival is never easy. It was not meant to be or not meant to be: it just isn't. Your survival is not up to others. It is only up to you. Everything you do must be for your own survival (a 'positive'). If that is 'positive' it is not selfish; in fact it's the opposite (selfish is only a notion). If that survival is as a parasite/controller (living off others) then that is a 'negative' and will not result in your survival. Your choice, your responsibility. Q.E.D. The Rutting Man The nature of the universe is such that things happen, whatever they are and howsoever they happen. Whatever we conjecture/guess etc., that is beside the point; it is an 'intellectual' exercise, if you wish. Conjecture is just that, guessing, mostly without data that is verifiable by experience (the use of our senses as given to us individually). Man reproduces by what we call 'sexual reproduction'. This, we are told is to allow for change, diversity and progress towards a creature more able to survive in the changing environment that the universe presents us with. We have little or no control over this. This is what the universe does; this is what we do (or don't do, which is the same thing). Man ruts like most animals. The difference is that we assume ritualistic behaviours which pretend not to emulate this. A good example is 'marriage'. The notion of this marriage is an invention by Man. It is not a 'natural' state as animals do no get 'wed', they merely procreate depending on how their species 'works'. This is sometimes what we call 'monogamous' or sometimes call 'polygamous'. I question the notion of 'monogamous' for humans, because I believe that due to Man's behaviours, this is not necessarily so. There is only the ritual of marriage that pretends this; it is not inherent in Nature. Some creatures share mates, stay with one mate, have several mates.  (This also happens in human animals) Man, it appears, seems to go to inordinate lengths to preserve one female for himself in the 'normal' course of events. Whilst we have come to believe that this is a truism, in fact it is obviously not. Other animals seek their partners with obvious skills that we can observe. A perhaps trite one is the peacock and a hen. Man may not be so flamboyant as a peacock (he leaves the female for that!) but has to have found other means to procure a mate. And that's what it is all about; a mate. Some-one, if you will excuse, as they say, the French, some-one to shag/rut etc. (And, yes, it seems to be just that, most of the time) Upon this notion we are prey to all the ritualistic practices of the parasites who will feed off this and survive (for a while) on this notion. The 'marriage' ceremony, for instance. All this, therefore, makes no real 'sense' for survival. A man, or woman, must make their own decisions based on the data that they acquire by their own experiences (and which includes the advice, data, knowledge from those close to them, especially the parents). There is something known as 'hybrid vigour'. That is the natural way to advance the survival of a creature on this planet and is the basis for all flora and fauna still surviving (however this is achieved). We all make mistakes in 'marriage' and partnerships because we are led to believe that the notion of 'romantic' love is the way to go. Patently it isn't if you look at the world as it would appear to an outside observer. We need to get rid of this Victorian notion. I am not loathe to say that I believe that Man is a gullible animal. How this has come about, I do not know. Gullibility is the disability to be able to accept imperfect (against survival) data and interpret it is as some sort of 'truth'. This, I would think, naturally leads to the ability of parasites (as one of their properties) to produce untruths (however manifested) as truths (propaganda). It appears that this gullibility is a function of an individual's ability to survive as an individual. Some will take the path worn by others, some will take another path. This is not a question of morality ('right' or 'wrong') but a question of each individual's ability to survive. My thrust in dialectic (argument for the benefit of knowledge from data) has always been that of the parasitic behaviour of control. It remains so. Symbionts work together for the common good. Parasites do not. Why individuals allow control is a bit of a mystery. It has to be to do with an immune system that embraces self-control. Self-control is taught by other animals to their young for their survival. It used to be taught (to some varying extent) by human animals but this seems to have disappeared, from my observations at least. A weakened immune system leads to breakdown of the body. All diseases bar none, are 'caused' by a breakdown in the immune system. Bacteria and viruses (so-called) are with us every micro-second of what we call time. They inhabit our bodies as we breathe. These bacteria and viruses are symbiotic or parasitic in behaviour. If the immune system breaks down for some reason, then the parasites take over and we become 'ill' or dis-eased. The parasitic bacteria/viruses are the ones which comprise the immune system, be it biological or 'mental' (psychological etc.). Converse with the symbiotic bacteria/viruses. Thus, if we let others control us, there must be a break-down of the mental immune system allowing the parasites to take control. Man needs to understand these immune systems for him to remain an individual symbiont. He must know how to combat or keep these healthy for survival. Man is supposed to have what he calls 'reason'. Reason is (by my definition) the ability to be able to interpret data that comes to him through the senses (whatever they are) and accept a risk-factor for future behaviour/performance towards survival. It is what might be termed 'risk management' that should drive Man, not fear. Fear may be a factor in survival but fear is due to lack of data. Once (some) data is available, then the risk factor becomes important. Risk is what Man took towards survival. It didn't always work but so what? Without it, we would not be here now. Through risk, we learn. We don't learn from fear because that is a backward step. Through taking 'calculated' risks it means that we have been able to be reasonable (that is formulate the data into a working hypothesis from which we derive the risks of a particular behaviour or action); what some might call 'intelligence'. We have been able to use the data we have learned and applied it. We may apply it to other similar situations. This is extrapolation. This is analogy. Intelligence, by my definition, is the ability to use analogy. We all work at different levels of knowledge and awareness. We all have differences that cannot be ignored, from skin colour to mental/physical fitness. In a symbiotic world, these make no difference as they can be accommodated into the overall scheme of things. In a parasitic world, I don't know. Parasites, as they say, have a different agenda. I'm not a parasite (as far as I know), so I can't say. That's my level of awareness. The whole point is that we can't all live together in harmony at this time in one place. Whether we ever can, is another matter. What I do know is that parasites seem to be making headway, unless the symbionts get their immune systems working as they should. Intelligence is also the ability to accept or reject incoming data. Data comes to us through a very wide media (the senses) and in all degrees of strength that may only be unconsciously felt (e.g. magnetism). There may, of course be people who can actually feel magnetism (or other phenomena) and we cannot dismiss them. It's their level of awareness. The problem of accepting or rejecting data (i.e. that which is useful for survival and that which isn't) is also part of the mental immune system of the body. It it breaks down, then we are likely to become dis-eased with the wrong acceptance or rejection of data. The only way out of this quagmire, as I see it, is to reject any data that we do not feel comfortable with (in our 'heart-of-hearts'). We will be pretty close to a truth. One of Man's 'problems' is that he is bombarded with too much data and the lessening of skills to accept or reject data. I personally think this is what ails Man at this time in his history. Too much irrelevant data is shoved (there is no other word) at him (deliberate or not) and he fails to cope. His system is being overloaded; the mental immune system begins to fail. Since the mental and biological immune systems are compromised (they work alongside each other as well as together), all manner of anti-survival mechanisms come into play. This is commonly called 'stress'; although this is but one of the many ailments many people suffer from. I said at the beginning of this essay that I did not believe that there was a purpose to Man's existence (or any of the flora and fauna of this planet). However, if this gives discomfort to one, then just imagine that any purpose you suppose, comes from within yourself. If, therefore, you believe in a purpose, then there is one but it is yours alone. One should not inflict their 'purpose' (or anything else) on another person. This would be the act of a parasite, not a symbiont. As in all things: It is your choice, your responsibility. No fault, no blame. Peter K. Sharpen © March, 2008

Return to CONTENTS page