Interdialogging About Definitions With DORA
ON RAPE (III)
Jacob, no, I do not feel like arguing with anybody. I am interested in what you are saying.
** Dora, I know that you are interested, and I appreciate that. Both of us are investing time and effort in our conversation, and that is one of the most pleasurable activities of H. sapiens. I call argumentation (as distinct from arguing in a dialogue) a situation where each party wishes to impose his ideas, which means not substantiating the reasons for doing that. Personally, I just expose my ideas, as derived from the principles of D-SP, explaining how they arrived to my mind. I expect the interlocutor to concentrate on those ideas, in alternating paragraphs. Just saying, "I disagree" leads nowhere. Arguments must be presented in easy to follow phrases, and they must constitute a sequitur. **
Thank you for a definition of natural. This covers a lot of ground.
** One of the purposes of D-SP is to define, for the prevention of misunderstanding. Ambiguity is the mother of faulty communication. Please notice that I avoid using qualifiers such as "unfortunately" or bad, good, useful, except when they serve as subjects for philosophical discourse. Almost everything I am writing to you is covered in the nearly 150 essays available on my sites. You are not used to this way of examining what is and exists. (BEING AND EXISTING.)
There is hardly a subject I have not dealt with, either spontaneously or by request. Rick Ogden requested WISDOM and JUSTICE. Counted people are able to grasp D-SP. But my interest is purely intellectual, as told in the INTRODUCTION to D-SP. **
In my reading of various philosophers there were many conclusions which sometimes seemed like solutions, maybe just explanations. I did find very derogatory things said regarding women in Locke. Maybe even Hegel, but then he was so negative anyway it was hard to tell.
** I've not read those authors. I'm not a certified philosopher. I have explained this in several of the D-SP essays. I've said that most educated people know, without necessarily realizing it, all that is valid in philosophy, as it is applied in everyday life. What is invalid is of interest for historians only. **
Jacob, please analyze from a D-SP angle the following expressions of my thoughts on our dialoguing:
1. - I was hoping to pin down some definitions. I was considering the term rape within a legal context i.e., laws either written or unwritten depending upon the times.
*1). - Since rape has also a biological denotation, unambiguity is avoided by being specific. Connotations are liable to lead astray. Associations are destructive for dialogue, for their emotional impact. The sense of personal injustice leads to anger and secondary violence. Since these phenomena exist mostly in humans, they should be considered as late evolutionary phenomena, pertaining mostly to H. sapiens. Personal justice overrules the statal one when the individual feels that his rights are being trampled.
2. - What I understand you to say is that you are positing that rape evolved?
Rape is one of the two ways evolution determined as fit behavior for the creation urge embodied in mating. Copulation is not equivalent to mating in H. sapiens, the one species that developed copulation and related activities as a means to obtain pleasure. Rape began at the moment that to indifferent mating evolution added consensual mating. In H. sapiens, mating has a specific connotation different to unspecific coitus.
3. - I am not trying to put you on the hotseat, just trying to find a starting position.
*3). - Definitions are the starting position.
