A friend of mine did a disclaimer and then wrote back to me in another post in response to the Unconditional Love article and regarding the masculine and feminine story. David said the following:
Disclaimer: I am one of those people who can make long forum posts. I don’t yet know if this is one of those posts, but we will see. You have been advised 
There are a vast variety of opinions on the subject. But my approach is to question what exactly does the individual (be it man or woman) desire, what is their perceived place for themselves and where did this perception come from?
Well, this is one series of questions that can’t be answered easily in sequence. So we will have to work from the last question – backtracking to the beginning.
Where does perception come from?
If I told you that a pet is a big responsibility, so by bringing a dog into the house you will have to command it with absolute authority and it must understand when its behavior is unacceptable, you may have to yell at it, you may have to demonstrate aggressive stances or use alpha bodily gestures and if that fails you may have to excuse the dog when company is present – you may get a lot of negative feedback on that idea. Some might make mention of animal cruelty, others may consider it a form of exercising power to receive some level of gratification out of it. But say the dog owner was raised from a young age to understand that these assertions of authority to the dog are what gets results – and that later in the day he is fed, he is played with – and there is no error in this system. The opposing party may believe that kindness, love and compassion is the way to gain a dogs cooperation.
Is either party right or wrong?
From my perspective, I see no intention of malice and I see no ineffective way of dog management. I see two parties that are playing out their conditioned thinking. From a young age they were programmed precisely how to handle situations – and how to make judgment in accordance to their morality score chart, how to assess information and assign credibility to people.
How does this apply to male and female behavior?
If a female (let’s call her Jenny) is raised under a different set of rules, or encouraged to think of herself as a different component in society, then we can classify her “program” as “program A”. If we take a male (lets call him Larry) and he was taught to operate as a different component of society, we can then classify his “program” as “program B”. Now when confronted with problems, challenges or points of decision the difference between programming models may stimulate arguments.
Why doesn’t Jenny & Larry figure out how to compromise or promote solutions with mutual benefit?
Typically the incompatibility between different programming models for people in society exists because the programmers never intended compatibility beyond a very basic level. To compound problems, we have to understand that this is ‘programming’. These aren’t moral suggestions, these aren’t friendly words of advice. This is the one single set of instructions that people use to process all information.
So how can you make this claim? From the sounds of it you are saying people work like computers instead of human beings.
Correct. There are countless studies of human psychology and neural biology that compliment one another in the conclusions that all human thought stems from the principle of conditioned thinking. Conditioned thinking is the process of training the human mind by stimulating emotional responses to different situations. During this process the term “psychological anchors” presents itself, where the conditioned thinking begins to encompass the triggering of thoughts, emotions and a predisposed reaction in accordance to the anchor. Another way of thinking of a “psychological anchor” is to think of a neutral trauma. One that is neither bad nor good, but rather is a blank slate that can progress in either direction. When a human is brought into the world and exercises the first steps towards consciousness it begins learning the building blocks to interactivity with the environment by observation. For the first 5 years, the majority of all human activity is simply ‘monkey see monkey do’. Once the young life has affirmed it’s primary instructors their programing is commenced.
Traditionally the programmers are parents, teachers and peers with alpha status or seniority. You may identify them as mom & dad, Mrs. Miller, and the football captain, cheerleaders or any figure with alpha status over a social faction. So, based upon priority these ‘chiefs’ will program the ‘indians’ and mold the entire social structure accordingly. This process also enables stereotypes and other presumptive opinions people may have about one another. The chief told stories of the other tribes – and with his words he burned a portrait of his perception of these tribes into the minds of everyone in his village. The seasons grew tired and the new harvest came to pass – and there were divided factions of tribal loyalties. As a result, some of the tribes had established collective power and proclaimed domination over the territory. This meant some tribes weren’t offered fair trade. The same social sciences enable political campaigns, foreign relations, the hot romance interest you want to date and so on and so forth. We now see that conditioned thinking leads to social branding.
Our personal brand identity
We’ve taken a look at how our programmers can illicit any thought, response, or action out of us if they apply themselves well enough. How are we branded then? Our personal brand is a product delivered by a consortium of programmers. So the personality of an individual is the hybrid product of every instructional authority they have encountered during their developmental stages in life – and any reform or post-youth development that occurs later in life by figures that we entrust as authorities.
What we can take from this is that the concepts of “individualism” or “diversity” are byproducts of the exponential proliferation of conditioned thinking performed via a consortium of programmers.
Where does this leave us? Well, using the information above we can draw a conclusion as to “What is our perceived place in society?“. We can conclude that our place is at the center of attraction from every angle of psychological conditioning we have received.
What does a man desire?
A man desires to be treated in accordance to what is appropriate treatment for a man – as outlined by his own conditioned thinking.
What does a woman desire?
A woman desires to be treated in accordance to what is appropriate treatment for a woman – as outlined by her own conditioned thinking.
————————————————-
Whats the problem with this model?
This model allows every human being that has not become aware of conditioned thinking to be controlled, manipulated and abused into whichever form of behavior is preferable to those who promote it.
Byproducts of conditioned thinking from an abusive instructor:
Domestic Violence, Racial Discrimination, Sexism, Social Warfare, Political Abuse, Oppression, Emotional Corruption
How do we dissolve the negative byproducts?
The negative byproducts of conditioned thinking can only be dissolved at the level of which they were created. The implication of this would involve social reform on the levels of: parenting, education, social respect, community leadership, political leadership and emotional comprehension.
One method that can be strategically employed to accomplish this is by including self-awareness in public education to the extent that conditioned thinking is a thoroughly understood concept from a very early age. Improvements on this would include critical thinking (logic – incorporating inductive & deductive arguments) into the collective community intelligence.
Once we can put the above strategies into active motion we can then recondition the present-day human psychology to include universal “legacy compatibility” – at which point the following issues that plague our world will begin to break down and cease to exist:
Domestic Violence, Racial Discrimination, Sexism, Social Warfare, Political Abuse, Oppression, Emotional Corruption.
And Joy – your Masculine and Feminine energies will live in a symbiotic harmony at last 
———————— To David, My reply is this:
Wow, David. What an incredible way of defining how we become what we become without thinking about how we become it. I don’t have time right now to spin off on all the different thoughts and discussions there are here, so I will have to return. In the meantime, it is fascinating to see your reasoning – thank you for going ‘out there’ in the discussion – yet relating it to the real world. The thing I would add is a bit about how the brain works that I learned from The Stroke Of Insight written by Jill Bolte Taylor. She is a neurosurgeon who had a stroke and recovered from it. She points out that the brain is thinking it is doing us a favor by developing automatic responses and conditioned responses. It saves us energy and we can learn more stuff once we get certain habits built in. So once we do something several times, we train our brain to think a certain way.
As it thinks, so it is…and it becomes a habit. Much like driving a car. Once we learn, we can go fast without thinking. However, it is also true that to change our personal course of history, we have to re-learn how to do certain things. This means that we have to go in and unprogram old habits. What that takes is unplugging the old one, figuring out what would be a logical or replacement way of doing things…and then practice. That works. It takes awareness, time and practice. You can unlearn that which doesn’t serve you. So be kind to yourself in the process. Now, that said, I also think that there are certain behaviors of the brain that are natural to the male coding, and to the female coding…that are instinctive and programmed by thousands of years of reproduction. But that is another conversation.
Posted: December 20th, 2009 under Uncategorized.
