Greetings Economists, ha ha ha ha. Yoshie a wonderful example!
On a more serious note, a lot can be said about societies that are matrilineal in how sexual connections are used to build society. However, I do not think we can easily apply these practices to current global structures. What is important is not so much that some societies already existed in contradiction to current Western "CHRISTIAN' mores but that an economy like Japan's which developed around practical methods of sexual connection indicates how little we understand about emotion based connection.
Emotions are information structures in which we tend right now to be stuck with rigid barriers (sectarianism is a good example) which people on the left avoid discussing except to condemn. Emotions are an economy in the sense that children beg for attention and love which parents must produce or fail at parenting. But not an economy in the sense that emotional connection can be had for the asking involuntarily. Or readily produced on demand. In fact the rigidities are precisely what we wrestle with in terms of hatreds like racism and sexism. And are directly related to human limitations of direct body production of emotion connection.
Emotions are face based in origin. That's where we (primates but not reptiles) get the meaning of feelings via the face. They parallel language production (happen at the same time but discretely apart from language). So it really is a matter of understanding what is produced via the face that a society needs in terms of emotion connection knowledge. Sex can fool us by pointing feels (literally) at the body. So some hair style, curve of the chest, face shape, genital look and so on that seems to elicit sexual feelings represents sexual feelings. However, sex is a way to socially connect, and that is the central purpose of emotion structure, the connection process. Connection is a kind of work process that produces information about connection that people must know in order to have social structure to live within. Were we to have communism it must be done according to how connection is defined by emotion structure. So we are constrained by equality, democracy, to understand emotion structure production in those terms. The general failure to do that in communist societies in my view is a problem with Christian moral theory about emotion structure.
Christian moral theory confuses language knowledge with emotion knowledge production. Were socialism to address directly emotion knowledge it could then supplant moral based religious theory. One problem central to this socialist emotion structure is automation of emotion connection. While we remain tied to narrow small group premises of emotion connection we are unable to see how large scale social connection in a socialist milieu could happen. The Christian's can promise a heaven after death in order to put off a loving society. Socialists must offer a real world solution to a 'loving' society.
The potency of homosexual alternatives is simply to express 'love' in a format that is not male/female. In any case the problem lies in not so much gender based definition of love, but mass based definition of love. In terms of knowledge production it is the interactivity of knowledge production that is in question. If one looks at naked pictures of people to initiate masturbation via sexual connection feelings, the knowledge model is one-to-many (information production products like the print media) not interactive information media like games media. Which demonstrates what is to be done with sexual connection, i.e. how does one massively in parallel connect tens of thousand (or millions or billions) at once emotionally! Information for sexual connection must be on the large scale produced in an interactive format to socialize community (communist) emotion, and would inevitably be faced based not genital based. That points at the 'whole' society 'loving' the whole society or as the Christians like to prattle, HEAVEN. Religions tending to theorize the 'mass' mind via introspection, counter to externalizing the mass mind via computing.
thanks, Doyle Saylor On Aug 13, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Another Jesuit commented that 'this evil' was 'so public' that the people 'are neither depressed nor horrified'[8] suggesting that same-sex love among the clergy was not considered remarkable" (Dharmachari Jñanavira, "Homosexuality in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition,"
