All I can say it “WOW!”
Bill Gates has personally bought the rights to these lectures that you can view online. Freaking amazing! But then again, physics has always been my thing.
All I can say it “WOW!”
Bill Gates has personally bought the rights to these lectures that you can view online. Freaking amazing! But then again, physics has always been my thing.
How does one gain immortality? There seems to be two ways: genes and Memes.
In terms of genes, Richard Dawkins brings up some really interesting ideas about how genes work in his book The Selfish Gene.
At some point in the beginning of the primordial soup, a certain molecule was formed: a Replicator. One of the most interesting features about this replicator is that it has the ability to create copies of itself. Now, could there have been mistakes when there is copying? Sure. There are always going to be typos and such in any copying. So in this primordial soup, there would be different variants, a population of different replicas but they call came from the same “ancestor.” Could there have been more replicant B’s than C’s? Sure, perhaps B is more stable than C. Through this, perhaps replicant B would have a higher longevity, which means it would be more numerous in the population, which means it would start off on the evolutionary trend. But time is also going to effect it too: if replicant B makes a copy once per week, while replicant C makes a copy once per hour, obviously there are going to be far more replicant C’s. So it seems that replication at a faster rate is going to have a higher evolutionary trend too.
But there’s another factor: competition. The primordial soup isn’t infinite space. Eventually, all of these replicators are taking so much space, and if the building blocks are going to be used up, there’s going to be some competition to fight for these building blocks. Over time, stability was highly prized and the more stable you are, the better you can defend yourself or compete against others. Perhaps one knew how to break up the competing replicator (a first proto-carnivore). Maybe others learned how to build up a defense mechanism or some sort of wall (this could have been how cells were produced). Eventually, these replicators learned how to build some sort of container so that they could continue to exist. These containers are called survival machines. The first survival machine was probably nothing but a protective coat. As competition became more powerful, these survival machines had to become more elaborate and bigger.
So where are these replicators? They are called GENES. And what are these big elaborate survival machines that they’ve learned to build so that they will be protected by the outside world? THE HUMAN BODY. So now, natural selection doesn’t just favor replicators, but replicators that are good at making survival machines and can have embryonic development. Now we don’t even have to apply the word “living” or “alive” to these replicators. They don’t plan out, they don’t see the future. They just are. They just replicate. Over time, the replicators have made incredible survival machines: the heart, the muscles, and the eyes. A survival machine is a great vehicle. But it doesn’t just carry one replicator (gene) but thousands, millions even. These genes are dependent upon one another and they all refer to one another.
But eventually, these genes can only replicate so much (mainly because the survival machines (the body) has all of its space used up). So how can these genes replicate? Which is the quickest? SEX. Sexual reproduction is the most efficient way to mixing and shuffling genes. Your body is just a temporary vehicle for your genes. But when you die, your genes will die too. So there must be a way to make sure these genes survive. It’s through sex. These genes are so particular and so steady. It leaps from body to body through generations without a scratch.
So the only thing that’s a part of us that’s immortal is our genes. This is one way of gaining immortality: spreading our genes. What are we? We are the survival machines which carries these genes. In other words, we are the hosts and the genes invade us so make sure that they survive. When the host body is used up, they find another body to invade. Inside us is a colony of genes.
Eventually over time, these survival machines learned to have a purpose. They did things to achieve some end. What did this purposefulness evolve into? CONSCIOUSNESS. We, the survival machines, have been programmed by these genes and the genes just passively sit by. Why can’t they take charge? Time-lag reasons. They control protein synthesis. It’s extremely slow. It takes months. Thus, these genes built a brain. Predicting the future is also a great survival tool. Thus, those who can imagine what will happen in the future are one jump ahead instead of the survival machines who can only live based on trial and error. Trial and error takes time, and it could be fatal. Simulation (imagination), on the other hand, is both safer and faster. Perhaps, it gained something: self-awareness. The genes are the policy-makers and the brains give those orders out. There is one basic order that the genes (through the brain) has told us: do whatever you think best to keep us alive. That is the goal of genes, and this is how we (in other words, our genes) can gain immortality: our children.
Dawkins also brings forth another idea: the meme. I’ve talked about memes in a previous blog, but I’ll give a quick recap.
There is another primordial soup: the soup of human culture. And in this soup is another replicator. It’s also a self-replicating bit of information. But instead of information for life, it’s information about culture. In other words, an idea. We shall call it a meme. Examples are: songs, ideas, catch-phrases, fashions, ways of making things. Anything that can replicate itself wants to survive and proliferate. Well, ideas do replicate. Notice that when you hear a song, all the sudden that song is stuck in your head. Now just as genes replicate by jumping from body to body (via sex, mainly), memes replicate by leaping from brain to brain (via imitation). If a scientist hears or reads about a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. If the idea catches on, it replicates itself and it spreads from brain to brain. You’re reading this blog, for example. If these ideas are good ideas, you will teach these to others and this meme that I just taught you will replicate as well.
Memes, and genes, are in a sense parasites. The genes control the body; the memes control the brain in order to spread and replicate this information. It’s the same sense that a virus may take over a host cell. We are merely host bodies for genes and memes.
Now genes only survive if they can take advantage of what’s going on. Do memes do that? Yes. The ideas you have are all memes and through natural selection, you survive because the memes you have help you survive. So this meme “Don’t play with guns” helps you survive. This meme: “carrots are good” helps you survive. This meme: “exterminate all Jews” doesn’t help you survive.
But just like genes, memes are also selfish. Their whole function is to replicate themselves. They are things “infecting” our minds “like viruses.” When I hear a catchy tune, it “parasitizes” my brain and then spreads to the brains of others when I sing it. But some genes may not good for the host: cancer. Are there any memes that doesn’t help you survive? “Killing Jews is good.” Why is terrorism so popular? That meme catches on and other people say it’s a good idea. Indeed, memes could easily account for racism. There are other memes that we also “believe in.” After all, don’t we die for ideas like Truth, Democracy, and Freedom? And just like genes, all memes compete for survival. You have all of these different ideas and they want your attention. Memes try to convince you that that idea is a good one. And once you have this idea, it’s very hard to get it out of your head.
Thus, Genes: self-replicating information for proteins. Memes: self-replicating information for carrying out behavior. The most successful memes (like genes) are those that survive.
This is the second way of gaining immortality. When we die, we leave something behind: genes and memes. However, you will be forgotten by about three generations and your resemblance to your ancestors is so negligible that there won’t be any notice. If, however, you have a good idea that would contribute to the culture: a song, an invention, discovery, a poem, it will live on long after your genes have dissolved into the common pool. There may be no more genes from Socrates, but his memes, as well as Leonardo, Copernicus, and others are still living on.
Now that we’ve gone through the what genes and memes are, and how one can achieve immortality. My next claim is an interesting thought process. I don’t have any evidence for this except my own personal experience, but there may be something to this.
There are two types of people: those who want children, marriages and families (immortality through genes); and those who are creative by writing stories, producing ideas, creating art, or anything that brings forth new ideas (immortality through memes). There are some people that don’t want children or families. Now through the idea of evolution, the assumption is that these people are evolutionary dead-ends. These people won’t help reproduce and so their genetic lineage will die out. Thus, these are aberrations to survival. But what if these people have good ideas? These ideas take up so much energy and effort, that they don’t time to have a family or even get married. Their creative juices are so full, that they can’t even consider getting their genetic juices boiled up. Think about this: why do the most creative people in history not have families or children? Plato, John Locke, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Benedict Spinoza, St. Thomas Aquinas, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, etc. Or think of really smart people in history that were horrible family people: Bertrand Russell, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Schopenhauer, Descartes, Socrates, etc. At the same time (and I don’t mean to stereotype), homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, but have you noticed that homosexuals are the most creative people imaginable?
So here’s the controversial part: it seems that the more you want children and a family, the less creative you are. In a simple form, wanting children is inversely proportional to being creative. I can’t think of anyone in history that was really successful in having a good family and also good at producing an idea that has influenced society.
Now if my claim is true, then I would say that we should stop disparaging those who don’t want kids. Maybe it’s those people who have good, creative ideas that still furthers society. In that sense, immortality is obtained either way.
Imagine that you posed as the opposite sex for a year and a half. You’re still the same sex, but your outward appearances are changed through makeup and different clothing so that you look like the opposite sex. Now imagine that you can infiltrate in various groups, just so that you can see how this opposite sex functions. Norah Vincent does just that.
It was an odd journey, but it was still interested.
Vincent is a woman and she dresses and acts like a male. She makes a beard with professional makeup, she buys new clothing, and she goes to a voice actor in order to talk like a man. She takes on a new identity named “Ned” and she goes into male dominated groups to see how the men act. Her book is divided into various categories:
Friendship. “Ned” decides to join a bowling league. She sees how the men act around each other. It’s typical: they tell dirty jokes and they make fun of how they bowl. However, Vincent picks up a few things that I never really thought about as a man. She shook hands with the members of the bowling league and this handshake felt warm. It was as if to say, “you’re included in our group.” She never felt that when a women shook her hand. I never thought of it like that. I just always thought of shaking hands as a form of greeting.
However, the men tell the jokes as a form of bonding. In one story, a man’s wife has cancer and the way he deals with it is by telling jokes. This is how men bond, Vincent thought. When it comes to it, the men judged each other on what they did. They really didn’t have a concern about who you are as a person. They seemed to be practical like that. When it came to jokes, everyone was included, including themselves. It’s not as if they’re against these certain groups, it’s just that jokes are a way to form a bond. Everyone is the butt of jokes.
With bowling, Vincent was surprised that the men helped her on her technique. Even the opposing team helped her out with that. It’s another form of bonding. Women, it seems, are more competitive to sports then men. When men compete, they do it for fun. When women compete, they seriously want to beat you.
Sex. Because Ned really wasn’t a guy, the closest thing that “he” could do was watch it and hopefully gain the experience vicariously. Thus, a strip club that included illegal (?) sex shows. As Ned was watching the women dancing and grinding up against the men, including Ned, Vincent thought that this seemed fake. In fact, it seemed too fake. The women there had the exact perfect proportions in terms of their bodies and Vincent didn’t gain the attraction from it. Now, Norah Vincent is a lesbian so she is attracted to women, but Vincent couldn’t see what the big deal was. As Ned is looking around, he sees the men and most of them are either bored or excited. It seems that the bored ones are so used to this that the only way to get them more excited is to up the ante. In this case, we would assume the women lose because she has to be more objectified and do more risky activities. But Ned notices that both sides lose. The men who regularly went to these clubs were looking for some emotional outlet but this was the closest approximation to do so. Yet, they fully couldn’t let themselves go.
Love. Ned decides to go on a few dates and see how the dating world was as a man. From the bat, Ned gets rejected a lot. Rejection sucks. When he is able to go on a few dates, he notices that the women act to Ned differently than if it was Norah. The women are always on the defensive. It’s as if they have this attitude that “men are guilty until proven innocent.” It really takes a toll on Ned that at the end of this experience, he starts to gain some misogynistic attitudes and really starts to loathe women in general. But at the same time, we often think that men are free to do whatever they want, but women are stuck in this virgin/whore false dilemma. Ned starts to notice that men aren’t exactly free. Men must live up to the warrior/minstrel false dilemma from what society imposes onto them as well. You’re either a lover or a fighter. Along the way, Ned notices some faux pas: he listens to much, he makes too much eye contact, he writes lengthy.
Life. Ned decides to join a Catholic monastery and live with some monks. He wants to get a feel of how the men can live with each other without women being around. The monks have a simple life. But the way they live out their lives seems to have this rationalistic outlook of life. You do things a certain way in a certain order. Their crafts are put together nicely and being emotional is something to get away from. In fact, anything that has to do with the body is irrational. Most join the order because they saw life with another person as unbearable. They preferred the company of men because (a) it gets rid of loneliness, and (b) having a wife still fulfills obligations whereas having men around doesn’t. Indeed, these men are so rational that when Ned reveals himself to actually be Norah. Some of the men didn’t change their demeanor in a huge way. In the previous examples, everyone else did. Sorry I can’t say much in this section. I actually found this section a bit boring.
Work. It’s all about competition, getting pussy, scoring, telling the dirtiest jokes you can think of, and racing yourself up to the top. Ned joins a team where it’s full-out competition by selling coupon books. Ned joins up a team and the team is doing the best they can, but they’re very cut-throat when it comes to competition. Music is always blaring in order to encourage the employees for doing a good job. Every person is the company isn’t your friend (although they say they are), but it comes down to a Machiavellian scheme where you take advantage of everything. (This part really tore me up because it seemed to contradict her chapter on friends. But then again, I guess in work, Machiavelli is your philosopher, and when it comes to true friendship, you use Aristotle.) If no one buys the book, everyone makes it a big deal. It’s as if you have to walk the hall of shame because you didn’t put enough effort into it where it may have been something as simple as perhaps the people OUT THERE didn’t want to buy the product.
Self. There’s a retreat for men only. It’s a retreat where men can be real men without the social conventions stopping them from being their true selves. Men actually want to display emotions, but not feminine emotions. However, society has told them that they aren’t supposed to do that. Ned decides to join this retreat. There Ned meets people who have a different exterior than what they have on the inside. There’s someone there who looks tough, mean, and has a body-builder physique. But he’s very sensitive and he has emotional breakdowns all the time because society makes him conform to the idea of being a “tough man.” The men there draw pictures of their heroes and I wasn’t exactly sure what the point of that exercise was. But most of the complaints dealt with the men who had a hard day at work, but then they were expected to be the Mr. Fix-It man around the house. The men get tired of having all of these responsibilities.
All in all in was an interesting read. But I have one problem: Vincent seems to go the extremes in order to find out male culture. I don’t know about you, but when I think of male friendship, I don’t think of a bowling league. I simply think of my friends and I in someone’s living room just simply relaxing and discussing life. We bullshit around but I doubt joining a league would be an adequate aspect of male bonding. In sex, Vincent says that she went to the seediest strip club she could find. I don’t know many males who go to the seediest strip clubs. Again, in terms of love, life, work and the self. I honestly don’t know many males who gets involved in a monastery, a job that’s purely on commission, and retreats to discover your manhood. Thus, it seems that Vincent is saying this is how males are when her sample is on the fringes of what males actually do. Some of the males I read about seems so far-fetched that I can’t recognize me or my male friends in any of them.
To her credit, she does bring up some interesting tidbits that I never thought of as a male. Her discussion about handshakes was what I found the most fascinating out of the whole book. I never really thought about handshakes as a way of “including” someone. It’s perhaps worth reading once but if you had the time. She’s states that in the end it was truly hard being a guy and she was glad to hang up Ned. Her overall message is clear: females have it harder than males, but don’t automatically think that males have it easy.
Well, Halloween has come and gone and so the scary stuff is pretty much at ease. But the more I think about it, being scared makes no sense. Think about it. I wrote a previous blog about evolution and emotions. I was thinking of fear. Why do we feel fear? Why does that make evolutionary sense? I think the easy answer is because fear gives us a clue that we should avoid something because it’s a threat to our lives. People avoid scary things because it could be a threat to their own existence. For example, many people are afraid of heights. This is because they view heights as something that could potentially end their lives. Many people are afraid of public speaking. This is because it not only forces one to do something, but it also forces one to be something that makes them uncomfortable. So being scared is something to avoid. Yet. . .
Halloween is all about being scared. Not only to we look forward to this holiday, but we can’t wait to go see the latest Saw movie or go through some haunted house during Halloween. This isn’t just around October, but throughout the year, we seem to love horror movies and we love being scared. So why is that? Evolution tells us that being scared is something we try to avoid. Yet, we sometimes seek out horror in order to be scared.
This problem has been around since Aristotle. I have a few suggestions but I wanted to see what everyone else thought.
“I have a right to own a gun because the constitution says so.” — You’ve just embraced cultural relativism.
“God would never allow that.” — You’ve just embraced Divine-Command Theory.
The prospect of evolution is that a new trait will be more adaptable for the species. For example, imagination helps you survive because imagination helps you think of certain possibilities. If you don’t have an imagination, then you have to go through a trial and error basis and that can literally kill you. Lately, I’ve been thinking about emotions and how they have an evolutionary advantage. So why do emotions help us survive?
Happiness seems to be easy. Happiness releases endorphins and that provides pleasure. We all seek pleasure and pleasure is something that makes us survive, or at least, it makes us not want to die.
Anger. This seems tricky. Why does anger help us survive? Well, imagine if we never became angry. It seems that in some cases, we are justified in being angry. If we never became angry, people would walk all over us and that wouldn’t help us survive. That’s one example. But anger seems to have a survival mechanism.
What about love? Love is an extremely complex emotion, but it seems that it’s nature’s aphrodisiac in order for us to propagate the species. In other words, love may not help the individual survive, but it does help the species overall survive.
There are a few emotions that I’ve been trying to figure out how they help us survive but I can’t think of why. Maybe through our imaginations, we can discover the purpose of these emotions. Why is sadness a helpful evolutionary strategy? I’ve been thinking about it, and the only thing I can think of is that the way to break through sadness is by some creative process. Notice that many people are creative when they’re sad. They seem to break that sadness by being creative. But this seems to be a lot of energy. Why couldn’t we just evolve with a simple creative process without being sad? It seems that it’s expanding too much energy just by simply being creative. So what’s the point of being sad?
What about jealousy? What’s the survival process of being jealous? I guess when we see someone trying to steal our significant other, we see that as a threat to spreading our genes. Ehh, maybe. That seems like a weird explanation. So what’s the point of jealousy?
What about disappointment? Anxiety? Hope? Despair? Or being nervous? I can’t explain the evolutionary purposes to these. Can you?
Here’s an interesting site where the author breaks it down into simplistic steps. There are some that I wouldn’t agree with on what is conservativism. It might make sense in today’s climate (and that’s what the author is saying), but as a philosopher, conservativism is something different than how it’s being used today.
On the flip side, he also has a list of what is progressivism. Again, not everything on the list I agree with, but it’s a very nice summary on both counts to suggest what the differences are.
Fareed Zakaria on CNN had an interesting round table about Iran. Two people were for reform and the other person was for attacking Iran. I found all of them intelligent and they gave their case equally well. What really intrigued me was what Zakaria recommended: maybe we should get used to a nuclear Iran, but with extreme caution. It surprised me, but his argument makes a lot of sense: if we attack Iran, most of the Arab world would support Iran, and because the War on Terror is already costly and unpopular, we can’t do Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan all at the same time. The only solution would be to be there for a long time, which won’t work, or to bring in a draft. Yikes! At the same time, this will only delay Iran from getting the nuclear weapon by only a few years; it won’t stop them from getting it. Thus, allowing them to get the nuclear weapon might be a better option, but with caution. You can check it here and here.
Daniel Dennett in his book Breaking the Spell has talked about “belief in belief in God.” What does that mean?
People who believe in God are sure that God exists, and they are glad, because they hold God to be the most wonderful of all things. People who moreover believe in belief in God are sure that belief in God exists (and who could doubt that?), and they think that this is a good state of affairs, something to be strongly encouraged and fostered wherever possible: If only belief in God were more widespread! One ought to believe in God. One ought to strive to believe in God. One should be uneasy, apologetic, unfulfilled, one should even feel guilty, if one finds that one just doesn’t believe in God. . . People who believe in belief in God try to get others to believe in God and, whenever they find their own belief in God flagging, do whatever they can to restore it. (p. 221)
So the belief in belief in God is so strong that a few atheists even encourage it. (How many agnostics or atheists do you know who simply say religion is not for them but may be needed for some people, because it gives them meaning? Or that if someone is demonstrating the fallacies of a religious doctrine, the atheist simply states, “but it works for the religious people?” Or even a few atheists who wish they were believers?) Indeed, part of the belief in belief in God already sets up an authority in society: not only does one believe in God, but one should believe in God, one should even, if necessary, struggle to believe in God, that the belief in God is a good thing in itself. The default, it seems, is that theism is the goal of life and that an atheist who wishes to be a theist is understandable. I challenge this assumption.
Imagine a young illiterate man from a third world country who suffers from abject poverty and a cripple at that. He has no family, no home and on certain unfortunate days, nothing to eat. His great desire is to commit suicide to end his misery. He thinks of it daily. There is only one thing preventing him from doing so: his belief in God. He knows that suicide is the greatest of sins and he can not offend God. He has tried to reason his way out of belief in God, but no matter how much he tries, he can’t stop believing in God, not for a minute. He doesn’t go to church, loathes it actually, hates the clergy, etc. And as for the afterlife, he would rather not exist at all than have to wait and suffer for years before attaining paradise. And sometimes he even hates God before disbelieving in Him. In the end, he repents for disrespecting God, but he does so reluctantly. So here’s the question: is this sort of person possible? If so, is there a psychological reason? Can a theist be so reluctant to be a theist? Is it possible to will oneself to atheism overnight? We often hear of the atheist wishing that he could believe in God, but can there be a theist who wishes he was an atheist?
There’s some interesting movements, books, and articles about how being unmarried to each other is the new social action. I applaud this movement, mainly because it’s an expression of freedom. Moreover, marriage is an evolving idea that has shifted the means and ends over time.
For example, in this New York Post article, a woman explains why being a non-wife was important to her:
Ever since I was young I knew I wanted children, but that didn’t necessarily mean marriage. I was never one of those girls who fantasized about a big wedding and as I grew up and started dating, I realized that marriage wasn’t for me. I’m not religious, so a religious ceremony would be hypocritical. As for a civil ceremony, why do I need the validation of the state or the government to recognize my right to be with whomever I choose?
Indeed, the idea of being unmarried to each other seems to suggest that the commitment is stronger because what keeps the people together is their desire to be together, not some legal contract inscribed on a piece of paper:
In fact, I think my commitment is actually deeper than someone who has a legal contract certifying her relationship. Michael and I work at our relationship because we want to be together, not because there’s a legal contract that makes it hard for us to leave each other.
And again, in this Times article:
Is marriage on its way to becoming the relationship equivalent of our appendix (in that it’s no longer needed but can cause a lot of pain)? “You’re looking at the vanguard,” sociologist Andrew Cherlin says of CUs like McCauley and Hathaway. A Johns Hopkins professor and author of The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today, he notes that unmarried parents in Europe stay together longer than married parents in the U.S. “Marriage is a more powerful symbol here,” he says. “It’s the ultimate merit badge of personal life.” And if it doesn’t fulfill people’s (often overwrought) expectations, they leave.
In other words, people have looked at marriage, love, and relationships as finding the “perfect other half.” On top of that, marriage is considered a high note on a relationship hierarchy where a “true” commitment is where one is in not only in a relationship, but is also married.
Marriage can always end, and the protection it once offered offspring is now covered by child-support laws. Add that development to the gains made by the domestic-partnership movement, and, Cherlin says, “the legal advantages of marriage, the benefits that one would get, are eroding.” This is one reason CUs like Charles Backman, 44, a commercial real estate developer in New Hampshire, see marriage as outdated at best. Backman wants no part of what he calls “the government stamp” of approval on his relationship to his partner of 15 years. “People mistake the government sanctioning your marriage for commitment,” he says. The father of three girls ages 1 to 7, Backman finds marriage not only unnecessary but also tarnished by commercialization. By not marrying, he says, “I saved $50,000 on a wedding, money I can use to help pay for the kids’ college.”
Of course, there is a caveat: this only works if the people involved are equally going to be committed to each other. But that seems like what you’d want in a relationship in the first place. After all, would you want to be married to someone who wasn’t equally committed as you were?
We have these “Do-It-Yourself” relationships and “designer relationships” where you get to pick and choose what sort of relationship best fits for you. Marriage is no longer a defaulted position where you are now part of a same social group, but the hope is a call for a “minimal marriage” where we can think of a relationship in what we want. We often take marriages, relationships, and sexuality as a “one size fits all” ideal. However, I take these ideas much like appetites. Not in the sense of desires, but in the sense that appetites vary. We all have different appetites toward different foods. Some people are vegetarians. Some people really like seafood. Others find stinky cheese the best. Some people prefer beer. Others prefer scotch and soda. Some people like cookies, others like ice cream. We all have different flavors to go for. We may experiment with different tastes, but we all have what is considered are favorite food, our standby food, the food that we can make easily when short on time, and then there are foods that we just can’t stand. And yet, hardly anyone I know makes fun or criticizes people’s taste in food. I don’t hear people say, “you like ice cream? That’s so disgusting.” “You don’t like brussels sprouts? What’s wrong with you?” Ok, so I do hear them, but the criticism isn’t deep or cutting. There is no shame or stigma associated with liking or disliking food. We simply accept others tastes as their own and leave it at that. Couldn’t the same be said with relationship and sexual styles? We all have different tastes in what we want in a partner. Yet, we have to follow the same sexual or relationship path. If we don’t, then we are are on the fringes of society, which can be cutting and deep to our identity. This is wrong. Relationships and sexuality is not following the yellow brick road; it is more like the variety and spices of our particular palates. We have our own taste palates. Certainly we have sight and auditory palates. We seek/avoid certain sights and sounds. I’m sure the same could be said with olfactory and tactile palates. The same could be said with sexuality and relationships. We have our particular sexuality palate and a relationship palate. Admittedly, this is something I need to develop, but it is a far cry from following a certain path that one must follow.