There never was a strong character that was not made strong by discipline of the will; there never was a strong people that did not rank subordination and discipline among the signal virtues. Subjection to moods is the mark of a deteriorating morality. There is no baser servitude than that of the man whose caprices are his masters, and a nation composed of such men could not long preserve its liberties."

Ralph Waldo Emmerson(1803 – 1882) American essayist, lecturer, journalist and poet who led the transcendentalist movement of the mid-19th century.

Times & The Justification Hypothesis

Afew years ago, the recollection of my married life inspired a cartoon/satire series about the relationship between a man and a woman, called “The World of Us.”

The first story of the series is titled Love and Hormones. Despite the humorous tone, I never dreamed of entering into the complex subject of human biochemistry and its effect on men/woman interrelation. I guess one doesn't link our different organs, lots of water, a series of glands producing a variety of chemical messengers called hormones , making us act/react due to their internal systematic programmed functions. When you begin to read, then you realize enough going on in each of us to make us a living Molotov cocktail.

The complexity of this subject consumed a year of my life while trying to separate the influence of ideologies, and distortions culture brings into science research, focusing on the latest updates as much as possible.

Plenty of humans scientific research uses animals, due to the fact you cannot use humans for the barbaric experiments done on animals. Therefore, as we are not exactly equal to animals, many experiments are not accurate. As an example, the coveted subject of monogamy uses vasopressin activities in the cute rodent prairie vole to analyze the couple's loyalty.

As a result, my three-page cartoon turned into a book in which I felt I had to give the reader a “justified” reason for the dialogue in which I engaged the two lovebirds. Let’s face it, couples can lose track of their interactions, and communications can sometimes take unexpected turns into bizarre territories. Who would think of blaming these diversions on some chemical component with a name you never heard of churning inside your body at that particular time?

After a year of intense reading, I concluded: we will never reach one single, final definition of human behavior. We'll have to settle for generalities, to create a sense of “order” in which to place our different discoveries into broad categories and be able to find some sense out of any of the different correlated subjects. Naturally, I only scratched a tiny area of the surface on the subject of hormones.

R egardless of what area of interest we choose to follow or duel into it, we’ll always bring our interpretation, influenced by the “cultural district zones” in which we were geographically raised.



As humans rely on expectations, the reality is: there is no logic inside expectations. The expectation is a tool we use to influence reality, and the future. Apart, of course, from the twists and turns, our interpretation adds to the confusion on the subject. The notion in itself is “futuristic,” and I doubt your favorite psychic reader knows with certainty the future.

Organized societies enforce labels on how a society must live through a series of institutions such as family, community, political structure, legislations, education, economy, religion, etc. Most labels are no more than persuasive rhetoric of Aristotelian proportion, usually dictated by a single or a group of smart-asses with “maximum influence” through manipulative rhetoric. The mold for rhetoric is still being used in the 21st. century, is based upon Aristotle’s “The Art of Rhetoric,” and it goes through simple steps:

• Ethos: based upon “who” (and the “who’s” character may be fishy?)
• Pathos; the psychologic state of an audience (usually in denial)
• Logos: the substance of the message (it can be an empty one)

Historically, successes have been measured by the “maximum influence” of the perpetrators. Which in many ways forces us to look upon the fundamental importance of knowledge as the most important tool for self-protection, don’t you think? We are, after all, critical thinking animals, the reason we are set apart from all the other living creatures on earth.

The certainty of my human condition brings me to what has been going viral inside my mind in the last few years:

The Justification Hypothesis

In physics, the unified field theory describes forces by the fields mediating interactions between separate objects. Classical philosophers set foundations of profound thoughts regarding our “rationale” as human beings, still in practice today.

As I am a nature lover, I was attracted by French philosopher René Descartes (1596—1650) use of a tree as a metaphor for emphasizing the importance of knowledge to be applied to the external world, to the human body, and to the conduct of life, reducing them into the three principal ones: medicine, mechanics, and morality:

• Roots: metaphysics
• Trunk: physic
• Brunches: all other sciences

Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy 4 writes:

I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist”

recognizing it as something self-evident by the intuition of the mind. That is, no matter if I am a derailed human being if any thought crosses my mind, I am thinking, and therefore, I exist (Cogito, ergo sum) as I am alive. I can say, without creating a stink, a simple ontological nature of the thinking subject. Do you see any case against it?

While the debate continues about the validation of a Unified Theory in psychology, the third part of the theory, the Justification Hypothesis truly beats the brain out of me. At its core is the notion that human beings rush to find beliefs or values to legitimize a particular point of view.

Some clear examples continue to be heard still in 2018 with the treatment of women:

• Boys will be boys (including being condoned by many mothers in defense of their boys), no matter if they rape, bully or insult.


• Harvey Weinstein’s: “I came of age in the 60s and 70’s”


• PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA regarding the Billy Bush interview: “Lock room conversation”


• Never mind, women and man: SHE IS ASKING FOR

My question is:

since when does the notion of JUSTIFICATION apply at any point in time, to human behavior? Isn’t the key difference that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom
our sense of judgment,
our understanding of the consequences of our actions
and the ability to choose alternatives for those actions?

The entire debate is a waste of time in delaying, changing, maintaining, and carrying on the same degenerate behavior of a great number of individuals who thanks to distorted internal biochemistry continue to be the predators of society.

My new word is: they are no more than FATHERFUCKERS as they have no capacity for feeling inside their bodies the concept of bringing life into this world, even when they are in this earth thanks to their mothers. A society that protects predators at any level has no right to think they are entitled to preach and assume they have any grounds for MORAL STATUS.

WHAT LIES BEHIND FAMILY VALUES

click on the image below and find out . . .

Violence against women

All human beings have an equal basis for moral status

That is (in case you haven't understood your own make as a human being)

All human beings possess the same fundamental rights

That is: none should be differenciated by:

If you have problem with this
you should examine your own conscience,
provided you have one . . .