The Axin’ the Axiom tactic is a powerful tool of Applied Epistemology. With Applied Epistemology, we utilize the principles of proper knowledge production in order to reorganize conceptual structures so that they are more logical, rational, and “work” better. Knowledge production is such a common process, that too many people in society overlook its importance. I acknowledge that there is not a worldwide fascination with Epistemology (for some strange reason, as we are utterly dependent upon it). Thus, the application of Epistemology, including proper use of its lexicon, may be lost on certain members of the human race. For this reason, I apply Epistemology for the purpose of raising human consciousness and reorganizing human civilization to meet the demands that the modern era places on it. Epistemology is exactly the tool needed to counteract the bombardment of data in the “Information Age.” In this essay, we will examine an overlooked area of knowledge production; however, this area of knowledge is contributing to a more defined human sexual order.
The “traditional” sexual order of the human race is not at all orderly. Indeed, there is a general lack of appreciation of consent in the current human sexual order. All too often, “might makes right” in the sexual domain. Various forms of power can be misused to circumvent overt forms of consent. Furthermore, the “traditional” sexual order attempts to “fit” all 7 billion members of the human race into 2 distinct categories: cis man and cis woman. This represents sexual norms for the general history of the western world, as well as other human cultures throughout the world and history.
However, a cursory examination of history reveals that the binary sexual order is just not realistic. There is and were cultures that have had places for those outside the “traditional” binary duality of cis man and cis woman. Many native American cultures have a place for “2-Spirits”. There is also plenty of historical evidence that other cultures noticed that human sexuality seems to consistently deviate from the binary structure that the modern western world seeks to impose on the human race. There are places in these cultures for those who are outside the “traditional” sexual norms.
In the modern western world, there is the LGBTQIA+ community. This community is the modern western world’s version of what numerous other cultures across the world and history have noticed: human sexuality consistently deviates from a strict binary system. Therefore, knowledge must be produced in order to account for this.
The first recognition that is needed to produce new knowledge on human sexuality is that there is entirely too much variety in human sexuality to reduce it to strict binary categories. The next recognition is that regardless of categories present, human sexuality will remain beyond those categories in some meaningful way. The third recognition is that human subjectivity is valid in itself. When individuals communicate the content of their subjectivity, they are producing knowledge on their own subjectivities. This act has value in itself. The challenge that the LGBTQIA+ community faces is that the knowledge they produce is not as rigorous as science or math. Indeed, it is limited to linguistic knowledge, which may not be as precise as science or math. However, the LGBTQIA+ community demonstrates the value of linguistic knowledge produced on human subjectivity. The final recognition is that the strict binary categories themselves are also not as rigorous as science or math. Essentially, both are forms of linguistic knowledge that have their obvious limits. Human subjectivity cannot be reduced to an oversimplified binary division. Nor can it be precisely accounted for by the knowledge created by the LGBTQIA+ community. Each has their limits. However, the knowledge produced by the LGBTQIA+ community has some significant differences that make it more evolved than the oversimplified binary division.
LGBTQIA+ KNOWLEDGE FACILITATES CONSENT
With regard to intimacy, whether physical, emotional, or both, consent is of paramount importance. The reality is that such sensitive aspects of our animalistic nature can be disturbed by slight deviations from consensual interactions. Put simply, if consent is not properly present, serious trauma can occur. As such, the language to facilitate consent is also extremely important. The “traditional” binary norms take certain things as axioms, which must be reexamined.
The most obvious axiom is that all 7 billion members of the human race should and can fit into 2 categories: cis man and cis woman. This is just not realistic. Thus, as an axiom it fails as it presumes unrealistic things about our shared species. There is so much more to human sexuality and identity than cis men and cis women. When arguments rest on this axiom, they require that axiom to be defended as it props up other aspects of one’s argument. If we take as an axiom that human sexuality and identity should and can reduce cleanly into 2 categories, then we cannot make sense why this does not “work” when applied (recall that when something does not “work,” this is indicative of improperly applied Epistemology). That is, why doesn’t everyone just go along with the superficial “rationality” of a binary system? Because it does not work in modern society; it does not work in indigenous cultures; it does not work historically.
The binary system can be reduced to a conceptual system intended to assuage the out-of-control emotional states of members of the dominant class. They are unwilling to manage their own emotions and create the space for those who are different to thrive. Instead, many of these clueless individuals attempt to “misapply” Epistemology to “convince” members of the LGBTQIA+ community to revert back to a strict binary system. Such an effort goes against the tides of evolution.
The LGBTQIA+ community has produced knowledge to recategorize human sexuality and identity in the modern western world. An ongoing complaint of many minorities in the western world is that we do not have a place in society. Other cultures throughout history have found places for all members of society, including those with alternative sexualities and identities. Indeed, in many native American cultures, there was no word for “disability.” “Disability”, as linguistic knowledge, arises from individuals not having a place in society. The reality is everyone can contribute to their community. However, not all communities facilitate such contributions.
The knowledge produced by the LGBTQIA+ community supports an open, communicative, consent-based environment. The more categories that we have, the more potential harmonious combinations we can find. When our culture has linguistic categories for various subjective states, and these categories are seen as equal, then we can facilitate consent and healthy communication.
I identify as on the border between asexual and demisexual (which requires a strong emotional connection prior to the desire for physical intimacy) as well as nonbinary. This unique balance of sexuality and gender identity sends a signal to other community members that I am interested in friendships, not sexual interactions, and that I am not going to understand my friendships as a cis man. Others in my environment, especially the LGBTQIA+ community can harmonize with me based on these overt characteristics of my identity. Conversely, a trans woman can use this linguistic category to communicate to others her consent. She may seek friends in other trans and cis women, but she may seek sexual partners in trans and cis men, for example. The linguistic knowledge of the LGBTQIA+ community facilitates this. There is far more information “out in the open” in the LGBTQIA+ community. This represents a more evolved state.
Ironically, the LGBTQIA+ community puts “out in the open” much of which has been “kept in the closet” throughout much of history, especially in the western world. The reality is that human sexuality and identity does not conform well to a strict binary system. Humans have been engaging in various types of sexual interactions and relationships as long as humans have existed. Prevailing social orders may encourage or restrict certain activities. However, this does not mean that humans still do not regularly engage in certain activities. Regardless of whether homosexual activity is legal, there will be homosexuality. Regardless of whether trans people get recognized, humans will still have alternative gender identities. As animals, humans will still follow their sexual instincts as well as instincts for healthy socializing, whether or not a particular society approves.
THE KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECTIVITY HAS INHERENT VALUE
In previous essays, I have contrasted rigorous knowledge, like Epistemology, science and math, with linguistic knowledge such as what we may find in the LGBTQIA+ community. Linguistic knowledge can have value, especially when it can be used to help individuals grow. It is also far more limited than science or math. As such we must be mindful of its limits, as well as its advantages.
The first thing to note is that the terms produced by the LGBTQIA+ community exist for the purposes of personal and evolutionary growth; harmonious communication; and creating an environment of consent. The great irony is that the strict binary systems that tend to oppose the LGBTQIA+ community are not rigorous like science or math. Rather, they are primitive and unevolved bodies of linguistic knowledge that are based on preserving the primitive attitudes of modern western (and some non-western) culture.
A binary system is not more properly produced knowledge than the LGBTQIA+ system. Indeed, in attempting to revert to more primitive states, the binary system seeks to assert that it is somehow “accurate” and the LGBTQIA+ system is not. From various angles, this position will be overturned and shown to be a primitive form of linguistic knowledge.
However, prior to an introduction on how to apply Epistemology to defend against bigotry and primitive thinking, I must first focus on the value of human subjectivity. The reality is that human subjectivity has inherent value. Humans can direct their subjectivities to do amazing things. Just look at human history and we can find no shortage of human ingenuity. This all comes from human subjectivity directing our bodies to do various things (the subjective directing the objective). The basis of every human accomplishment is our subjectivity. Linguistic systems that encourage growth and better communication among human subjectivities have inherent value. Evolution, communication, and improved consent are part of human subjectivity. With 7 billion people on Earth, there are just as many subjectivities that must learn to coexist. Developing language to facilitate this is part of evolution.
I also want to recognize that the terms we use to understand our own subjectivities and engage with others are in constant flux. As paradigms shift, so too does the language we use to describe our subjectivities. This means that we must be open to changes in this language so that we can keep up with the pace of evolution, which seems to be increasing in our modern world. A body of linguistic knowledge that facilitates self-understanding, communication, consent, and encourages differences is an evolutionary advantage. The LGBTQIA+ community has developed a comprehensive system of linguistic knowledge that accomplishes this.
Linguistic knowledge used by an individual to increase their self-understanding, communicate more effectively with others, and promote a more orderly sexual environment based on consent is valuable. Linguistic knowledge is not expected to rise to the level of rigor that math and science do. However, when individuals choose to utilize this linguistic body of knowledge to effectively communicate their subjectivities to others, this needs to be validated and encouraged. Furthermore, the lack of rigor in linguistic bodies of knowledge, make them adaptable as Time goes on. A flexible linguistic system can handle the influx of new information far better than a rigidly defined one. Put simply, the lack of rigor in the LGBTQIA+ system is also present in the binary system, as both are linguistic bodies of knowledge. The question then becomes: Which system represents the trajectory of evolution? The LGBTQIA+ system.
AXIN’ THE AXIOM: COUNTERACTING BIGOTRY WITH APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY
In this essay, I do not just want to identify the shortcomings of a strict binary system, but I also intend to teach my audience how to apply Epistemology to counteract bigotries, especially from those who “Misapply” Epistemology. The first aspect to understand about my system of Applied Epistemology is that language is not linear, rather it is “stacked.” Please review my essay, “Stacked” Communication within a Linear Language Structure. We will need to appreciate that ideas are “stacked” on other ideas in order to Apply Epistemology effectively. Put simply, every word that you use is “stacked” on other knowledge, including axioms that presuppose certain things about reality. When these axioms are identified, they can be overturned by finding a more foundational axiom upon which the other axiom rests. In order for “B” to be true, “A” also has to be true. Furthermore, “B” needs “A” as prerequisite knowledge to exist.
Another aspect of Applied Epistemology is by using the Axin’ the Axioms tactic, we can shift the logic of the entire conversation. If “A” is true then “B” is also true. However, if “A” is false, then “C” is true instead of “B”. When “C” is true instead of “B”, then the logic of the entire conversation shifts to account for “C” being true instead of "B”. Our goal will be to identify these “A’s” and shift them such that “B” is not longer logical and “C” bears the prevailing logic.
In other words, as we identify axioms and reexamine the logic of the entire conversation based on this, we can shift that logic in our favor. In my approach, I emphasize the lexicon of terminology in Epistemology. As we understand and effectively apply the lexicon of Epistemology, we can shift the logic of conversations in our favor. Furthermore, learning the lexicon of Epistemology is accessible and practical.
I have a natural intuition for Applied Epistemology. This makes me an ideal teacher. However, anyone can learn Applied Epistemology and use it in life. In my system, we will identify axiomatic statements/ideas and then follow them to see which other axioms they are “stacked” upon. The recognition that spoken/written language is “stacked” opens up numerous doors of opportunity to apply Epistemology. In order for someone’s ideas to be rational, they also need to be “stacked” on other rational ideas in a coherent manner. When this “stacking” is coherent, we can unlock much power from the knowledge. However, when the ideas are not “stacked” properly, the apparent superficial logic falls apart when we apply Epistemology.
In today’s lesson, I will offer the LGBTQIA+ community an outline for how to defend against the overt bigotries of numerous “street epistemologists.” Perhaps this response can be conceptualized as “Hood Epistemology.”
HOOD EPISTEMOLOGY: SEX, GENDER, AND THE AXIOMS THEY ARE BUILT UPON
In order to effectively apply “Hood Epistemology” to counteract primitive bigotries, we will first need to understand some key terms and how they relate. These terms include:
Axiom (presumed truth)
Theory/Theorem (body of demonstrable truths)
Precision truth (truth values derived from correlation or proximity)
Accuracy truth (truth values derived from “correctness” or the exact superimposition of one truth value upon another)
Bifurcation point (a point at which a complex concept can be subdivided into constituent components. These are often seen as a subdivision into 2 related concepts; however, any complex concept can have numerous points of differentiation which allow for more than 2 subdivisions)
Prerequisite knowledge (more foundational knowledge needed to produce new knowledge)
Axioms relate to theorems in that axioms are the foundational material for theorems. As we examine our presumed truths about reality, we can use them to craft bodies of demonstrable truths. There is more room for error when we focus on axioms, as theorems have been shown to not only be demonstrable, but also systemic. An axiom can be part of a system of complex thought; however, they can also stand alone, unlike theorems.
I can formulate an axiom that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because that is how it appears to human perception. However, because this contradicts a theorem, my axiom has little value in itself. Here, the axioms regarding the motion of the sun and Earth have already been formulated into theorems. Thus, any axiom that contradicts the very theorem it rests on, is improperly produced knowledge. This is why understanding communication as “stacked” is so powerful. Once we see how our axiom relates to previously produced theorems, we can gain insights into our axioms.
Axioms can also rest on other axioms. When an axiom rests on a theorem, it is rather easy to overturn and shift the logic of the entire conversation. We simply need to identify and invoke the logic of a more fundamental theorem than the axiom in question. We also need the proper “connectors” to any foundational truth we are invoking. If my logic “jumps” too far from the axiom in question to a more foundational axiom, it is not as logical as we might like. We may find challenges in our conversation if we are not precise enough with our train of logic. Recall that proximity of values means something to precision truth. If our adversary can find a more relevant truth upon which the axiom in question sits, then they may be able to redirect the logic of the conversation, instead of us.
This is why theorems are more powerful than axioms. It is also why precision truth must be validated as it serves as a guide to more fundamental truths. The more proximate the foundational truth, the clearer our argument will be. Thus, the greater power we have to redirect the logic of the conversation.
Next, we must appreciate the difference between precision and accuracy truth. Please review my previous essay on this for a more detailed explanation, “The Futile Quest for Accuracy without Precision”. This essay provides a full description of this difference, as well as offers insights on how to apply it.
For this essay, we will need a basic introduction to this difference. Precision truth regards correlation or proximity of values. In Epistemology, this is important. Those familiar with science can appreciate the role of correlation as it relates to scientific experimentation. Proximity of values itself helps us understand reality. Furthermore, the more proximate the values, the more relevant precision is to our understanding.
Precision is more foundational than accuracy. We need to first identify proximity of values before we can identify points of accuracy. Precision is about the relationship among various phenomena. However, accuracy is about a correct alignment of specific phenomena. As we better understand the relationship among phenomena, we can use this information to formulate points of accuracy. Precision says that X and Y mean something because they are close. Accuracy says that X=Y and this is why they are important. Accuracy attempts to impose a specific conceptual structure on an already identified point of truth. This contrasts with precision which seeks to identify relationships among phenomena. Both are important in Epistemology; however, they are distinct forms of truth. We must appreciate the bifurcation point in the concept of truth that allows us to subdivide truth effectively into precision (foundation) and accuracy (outgrowth of precision). Indeed, because accuracy is a specific type of precision, it requires precision truth as prerequisite knowledge. Here, the knowledge of accuracy is “stacked” on the knowledge of precision. If we conflate the two, our argument can fail.
The primary argument of bigoted “street epistemologists” is that sex and gender are a weak point of logic in the position of the LGBTQIA+ community. It is here that we can properly Apply Epistemology for the purpose of advocacy and evolution.
DECONSTRUCTING LGBTQIA+ BIGOTRIES
Sex and gender are complex concepts. They also are axiomatic. They are “stacked” on another complex concept. This complex concept can be understood as a theorem as it is so ubiquitous throughout human history. That theorem is that there is a bifurcation point in the human organism between human subjectivity and objectivity. Put simply, human subjectivity is not human objectivity. We have already produced the knowledge of subjectivity/objectivity, including the distinction between them. This distinction is so fundamental to human civilization that it can be taken as a theorem, not an axiom. However, even if the complex ideas of subjectivity/objectivity are taken as an axiom, the trajectory of my argument remains. The reality is that we are going to find an even more foundational truth upon which the concepts of gender and sex (as well as subjectivity/objectivity) are “stacked”.
Once we shift the logic of the conversation off of gender and sex and put it on the significance of the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, we can gain control of the conversation. Gender and sex mean something as complex phenomena because they are “stacked” on the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Human subjectivity is not human objectivity. There is a line of demarcation that requires these to be conceptualized as distinct phenomena. Subjectivity has value independent of objectivity. This is why it is so easy for us to talk about various distinctions between mind and body, not limited to gender and sex. An amputees’ “missing limb syndrome” is yet another example. Human objectivity is not a point of accuracy to which the subjectivity must conform. Rather human subjectivity and objectivity have value as associated phenomena due to precision truth.
Human subjectivity does not “equal” human objectivity. That is, they remain distinct phenomena. We consistently run into epistemological problems if we attempt to reduce human existence to objectivity. Indeed, humans remain far more connected to their own subjectivities than objectivities. Human subjectivity and objectivity have value because of their proximity to each other, not because one is a “correct” copy of the other.
The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, as well as their respective importance is best understood through precision, not accuracy. Our minds and bodies mean something because they are precisely located near each other. Somehow our minds and bodies remain proximate throughout our entire lives (in general). However, for various reasons the state of our minds and bodies may be distinct.
At this point, we can identify an even more foundational theorem upon which the distinction between and importance of human subjectivity/objectivity is “stacked.” I call this a theorem because we can and do apply its knowledge in various domains, especially science and math. Furthermore, the application of this knowledge consistently “works” as a theorem should. When we look for “correlations” among phenomena, we are seeking out precision truth. When these correlations add up to a point of accuracy, we have used precision truth to identify accuracy truth. Over the course of human history, researchers and other curious people have used the distinction between precision and accuracy to consistently help us investigate reality. Precision truth leads to accuracy and accuracy is “stacked” on precision. This is how these two types of truth relate.
Thus, the apparent logic of the gender-should-conform-to-sex argument is overturned by a more foundational reality: human subjectivity and objectivity mean something because they correlate. The objective is not a point of accuracy toward which the subjectivity has some social responsibility to conform itself. These remain distinct phenomena and their proximity is what gives them value.
Thus, in order to even formulate an argument against LGBTQIA+ genders, one would have to utilize certain truths to do this. The first point of bifurcation takes us from gender-sex into subjectivity-objectivity. Once this logic controls, we can invoke the knowledge upon which these phenomena are “stacked.” This knowledge is the distinction between precision and accuracy and how this knowledge manifests in human subjectivity/objectivity. If we presume the distinction between precision and accuracy to be relevant (like we are required to using Epistemology), then that foundational presumption carries into the complex concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. In turn, the concepts of gender and sex are intelligible concepts because they invoke the knowledge of the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, as well as the distinction between precision and accuracy.
In other words, in order to formulate any argument for or against LGBTQIA+ gender and sexual orientations, we need the prerequisite knowledge of the bifurcation point between subjectivity and objectivity as well as between precision and accuracy. Any apparent logic contained in an argument for or against LGBTQIA+ categories is stuck within the controlling logic created by precision/accuracy and subjectivity/objectivity.
Therefore, the only truly logical position is to support the distinctions between gender and sex. No matter the arguments against them, the logic remains controlled by more foundational truths, which support a bifurcation point between gender and sex. This bifurcation point creates a space where gender and sex can be distinct.
Any attempt to impose a specific gender upon superficial sex characteristics is “epistemological violence.” Such a foolish endeavor should be seen as “misapplied Epistemology.”
REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF A LOGICAL DISCUSSION ON GENDER AND SEX USING
APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY
There are a number of ways that opponents of the LGBTQIA+ community (and the knowledge they have produced on sex and gender) can counteract this knowledge. One common way is to refute the concept of gender. Essentially, the arguments seek to make gender meaningless to make it “appear” logical to superimpose one’s sex on both their objective state as well as their subjective state. This argument is laughable, it is so primitive. Those who claim to (mis)apply Epistemology have yet to arrive at an evolved understanding of Epistemology to begin with. Ironically, my argument is “stacked” upon a solid understanding of the lexicon of Epistemology, as well as how the terms relate. I have yet to encounter a broad social appreciation of Epistemology. I also do not see some forms of “street epistemology” as anything more than clever manipulation of words to shift apparent logic in a conversation toward one’s own primitive agenda.
Bigot: you were born with a certain reproductive organ. Gender is a meaningless concept as it does not change your sex.
Hood Epistemologist: Gender and sex are intelligible concepts to begin with because they are founded on a more fundamental distinction between human subjectivity and objectivity. This is a theory, not an axiom, as demonstrated by the voluminous knowledge we have produced on subjectivity, across various domains (psychology, sociology, religion, economics, and other “soft sciences” depend on this distinction). We have and continue to produce knowledge upon our subjectivities as distinct from our objectivities. It is because we all recognize this distinction as animals subject to instinct that we can effectively produce knowledge of our own subjectivities. Here are some forms of knowledge that are subjective, yet play a huge role in shaping society:
Belief
Sexuality (how one feels comfortable with various forms of touch)
Likes/dislikes (attachments and aversions)
Cultural attitudes (what I learn about reality from my culture)
Several "soft sciences"
Each of these forms of knowledge refers to subjective states. Moreover, these subjective states play an important role in the evolution of individuals and groups. Yet, none of these refer to specific locations in the body. How do beliefs develop? Why do we feel comfortable with certain forms of touch and not others? Why do we like certain things but not others? Why does our culture exert so much influence on us? How do we understand "mind?"
All these insights support the obvious reality that human subjectivity (as distinct from objectivity) is and always has been important.
Bigot: You were born with a certain reproductive organ, and I should not have to validate your “beliefs” on your gender identity to the extent that they conflict with your sex.
Hood Epistemologist: To the extent that you have ever applied a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, you take as an axiom that there is a bifurcation point along which subjectivity and objectivity are subdivided. The human organism consists of various coordinated parts, which when functioning properly create a priceless life.
The distinction between gender and sex is built upon the bifurcation point between subjectivity and objectivity. Even in denying the relevance of gender/sex as complex phenomena, you would still apply as a theorem the subjectivity/objectivity distinction. Your mind and body are distinct phenomena. We have entire bodies of knowledge based on this distinction. Gender is just more knowledge produced on this distinction.
Bigot: Yes I see what you mean. However, your sex can be determined “objectively” by others, but your gender cannot.
Hood Epistemologist: First, we all can step outside our comfort zones and learn to validate those who are different. Indeed, we may learn something from those who are different. Second, it is not necessary that others can “objectively” determine my subjectivity. Indeed, this is an obvious logical contradiction. You have already acknowledged an important distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Why do we even have the terms “subjective” and “objective” to begin with?
Bigot: because at some point, people realized that our minds have capacities that our bodies do not and vice versa.
Hood Epistemologist: Exactly, as a species, humans seem to instinctively recognize the subjective/objective distinction. We can produce various types of subjective knowledge, not limited to gender. These include: “soft sciences”, our beliefs, our unique sexualities, our likes/dislikes and cultural attitudes. Each of these is important in civilization. A world without the subjective is illogical.
Bigot: ok, so even if there is a distinction between human subjectivity and objectivity, this does not mean that gender is a useful concept.
Hood Epistemologist: I am not quite sure if you even appreciate Epistemology. You have already acknowledged the distinction between subjective and objective. Why do these concepts mean something? Why do we have such a distinction to begin with and what truths of reality does that distinction rest upon?
Bigot: well, they mean something because we recognize that our minds behave different from our bodies.
Hood Epistemologist: Yes! We need knowledge produced on our bodies as well as our minds to have a functional civilization. Are the mind and body the exact same phenomena?
Bigot: No, there is a distinction as we have already established.
Hood Epistemologist: What truths of reality are the distinction between mind and body “stacked” upon? In other words, what more foundational truth allows us to say that mind and body are distinct, but their relationship is important?
Bigot: I really don’t know
Hood Epistemologist: Are you familiar with the term “truth”? Indeed, I certainly hope you are as our entire conversation is built upon truth and our search for deeper, more fundamental truths of reality.
Bigot: Of course, I know what truth means, it refers to things that are real.
Hood Epistemologist: Yes, but the concept of truth bifurcates into distinct types of truth values, which have their own unique relationship. Are you familiar with the terms “precision” and “accuracy?”
Bigot: I have heard these terms, I am not quite sure of their difference.
Hood Epistemologist: Precision truth is more foundational than accuracy. Indeed, we arrive at accuracy truth through the application of the knowledge of precision truth. We cannot have accuracy without first having precision. Precision refers to the proximity of values. When there is a high degree of proximity of phenomena, this means something in itself. Even though they remain distinct phenomena, mind and body mean something because of their state of correlation. Mind is not body; mind and body have distinct attributes. However, their relationship has value because of how they correlate.
The body is not and never was the “point of accuracy” upon which subjective knowledge must be built. However, bigoted misapplication of Epistemology attempts to do just this. It attempts to use superficial logic to make it appear as if the body should serve as the point of accuracy toward which the mind must align itself.
Rather, mind and body mean something as related phenomena because of the importance of precision truth. Think of it like this: precision concerns the quality of relationships among phenomena, whereas accuracy concerns the correct superimposition of one truth value upon another. This means accuracy is a special type of precision that aligns with an identified point of truth. We do not need accuracy for precision to retain value. Nor do we need to have accuracy to have precision.
Bigot: I am beginning to see where you are coming from.
Hood Epistemologist: Thank you. I hope that now you can see that our entire conversation, no matter which position, is “stacked” on both the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity as well as the importance of precision truth. It is the correlation between mind and body that gives them value. Thus, gender and sex are merely one type of specialized language we use to talk about the distinction between mind and body. We can also refer to this distinction through the language of subjectivity and objectivity (Your subjectivity is not expected to exactly conform to your objectivity, unless you plan to “think out” each heartbeat). Finally, this distinction remains logical due to the bifurcation point in the concept of truth which yields precision and accuracy truths. We can recognize truth values either through precision (primary) or accuracy (secondary, requires prerequisite knowledge of precision to be applicable).
In merely 2 degrees of separation, I have overturned the argument against gender. In simpler terms: The concept of gender is useful because the distinction between subjective and objective is also useful. The distinction between subjective and objective is logical because of correlation, or precision truth value. My mind does not control your body due to insufficient correlation. However, my mind correlates well with my body. An apparently “logical” argument that can be deconstructed using merely 2 degrees of Epistemological separation is a primitive argument to begin with. Perhaps your life would benefit from resting your mind on the consistent passage of Time to cultivate a genuine lasting happiness. This seems far more useful than primitive and futile attempts to impose bigoted language upon other members of our shared species.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The linguistic knowledge produced by the LGBTQIA+ community is valid and far more useful than primitive attempts to reduce the human experience to 2 categories. We each have a responsibility to evolve. This means that we may have to step outside of our comfort zone and learn to accept people for who they are and how they manifest in the present moment. Coexistence is the goal. When our linguistic bodies of knowledge promote coexistence, they have earned a place in a civil, rational society. However, when linguistic bodies of knowledge promote bigotry, primitive thinking, and contradict coexistence, then we each have the responsibility to leave them behind as our shared species continues its Evolutionary Journey.
Thank you and have a Content Day!
Sean Gunderson
Comments