1. He does not within his soul/being/that which continues on, build/grow the soulstructure of parenting; of taking care of something much smaller and is powerless entirely
2. He does not retain and build on the connection between the female and male - participating in something akin to lobotomy in our entire fauna.
3. He does not get to know humans in a way only possible through sex
Sacrificing humans to create a collective consciousness in mankind that devotes its resources to everyone else and not their own children makes for a collective consciousness+will+behavioral pattern (not a god) that is not very nice in its powerlessness - remember that suppression does not work very well, it pops up somewhere or acts in the hidden. Racism for example, however suppressed, is still there.
This involves tempting them into sacrificing themselves, manipulating them into doing so and so forth.
Including causing situations or laying the ground for there to be individuals arising where it would be acceptable to use them or laying the ground for there being systems of the mind causing them to feel a need to/that they have to.
Posted by ForestNymph at 10/01/17 08:54:58I disagree with you completely. There are people who are not "monks" who did amazing work in the world who did not have children, they directed that energy towards animals or towards helping large groups of people (like a "cause"). Also, some people who choose the celibate life are asexual or at least have a lower sex drive. Some women become nuns at an older age, one of my friend's moms considered becoming a nun after my friend had become an adult.
People do not need to be parents to be fully human, they do not necessarily need to have heterosexual sex to be happy and fulfilled, and they use the TREMENDOUS ENERGY that parenting and romantic relationships require and direct it into other pursuits, sometimes intellectual, sometimes humanitarian.
I don't know what you keep talking about with microbiology and fauna in regards to humans anyway, it strikes me as a person using big words incorrectly that they don't understand.
Posted by Hellhound at 10/12/17 05:43:15I disagree with you on this one. People have different levels of sex drive. Some people don't have a sex drive at all and are asexual. Empathy and sex are completely different things and have nothing to do with each other. There's people who will have sex with someone and not care about that person and people who will have a platonic relationship with someone and share a very close bond. The earth is overpopulated so there is not an immediate need for children. People don't need children to be happy or fulfilled and they certainly don't need a sex life to be happy or fulfilled. I have a low sex drive and I find that this is actually beneficial to me as I can focus all my time and energy into more important things.
Posted by h_o_rng at 10/12/17 12:36:02The point of "monkification" is exactly what you both mention; energies that would be used in a persons own family are instead used on a collective and broad level; for the families of many others. To me this seems a sacrifice of an individual and their family for the sake of other individuals and their families.
Perhaps I am also in contact with some ancestral-line thinking on this point. Seemingly also in contact with a old-fashioned thinking of male female; I see an indirect attack on homosexuality through my words, something I find rather strange as one of my best friends is homosexual and that I enjoyed partaking in the pride parade this year (I am not LGBT myself no).
The basic point was an observation that the sacrifice of individuals into monkhood is harmful:
Individuals whom are directed towards monkhood are exposed to a kind of collective abuse; one of the things happening while a person is alive is the growth of various things in their "soul"/deeper - such a one is the caring for something where one is rather almighty relative to.
Monks take on a major role in mankind and our collective consciousness; how the collective relates to the individual. There is a danger as such a person does not grow the ability to be responsible towards someone they are entirely powerful towards. This means the rather powerful aspects of the collective consciousness that these individuals generate is not connected with the caring for a child.
Monks typically leave behind their family to my experience.
I also fear this personally, something that sadly have become a major drive of mine in the last year, in some experiences I have had and am not interested in leaving behind my family.
Posted by h_o_rng at 10/12/17 12:57:20In Asia I have heard of monks being chosen from an early age, before they have any choice in the matter, taken from the right of sex and romance and dragged from their families. Much like calves taken from their mothers for milk production and to be slaughtered. Worse yet their families convinced that it is a good idea.
At old age it sounds like an interesting possibility for most people; a majority could go monks in their late years? Better than nursing homes... Like cozy ecovillages or something like that. Of course there is the issue of religion being involved.
Posted by h_o_rng at 10/18/17 19:17:34Now that I have looked at the other side of things after looking at this side of things (the other side of things to what I formerly saw) then:
Relationships when in harmful relationships between two people; whether friendships or romances, can be severely harmful as well as giving. These can be more damaging than healing collectively; compatability is just important.