Monogamy Gene

[waterflame5]

Been out of the loop for a while,
is this old news?
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web1/afarrell.html

In this whole philosophical idea
of ONE, could there be a genetic
predisposition that fosters that
consciousness? Like some sort of
Darwinism? Could the people who
have this gene more easily grasp
this concept, could it comes more
naturally to them?

Another curiosity is the differences
between men and women. Women are
better multi-taskers, better multi-
managers, better socially. Most
men have a cultural bias of "single
track operation."

This is banging at the conflict
with outmoded Patriarchal systems
that are being pressured to evolve
by the emergence of empowered women,
women who have claimed their key
roles in more egalitarian family and
professional structures,
women who more easily overlap
activities of "love" on top of
whatever else they are doing.
Yes, a higher mode of love.

Love is not meant to be limited as
a mutually exclusive activity,
often treated as such by many men
with their day planners.

Unwisely, Pat

[waterflame5]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=C3nm10upn1ZekVb2BCegyoJ8EZNblpdkUjs9we aSTGUdkCVpx5lZ1VseQghdm_Wn80CHGE7ZggjXSL9kCg), "waterflame5" <patrick@r...> wrote:
> Been out of the loop for a while,
> is this old news?
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web1/afarrell.html
>
> In this whole philosophical idea
> of ONE, could there be a genetic
> predisposition that fosters that
> consciousness? Like some sort of
> Darwinism? Could the people who
> have this gene more easily grasp
> this concept, could it comes more
> naturally to them?
>
I got distracted off the Monogamy Gene
topic and into gender differences that
would tend to give one advantage over
another in realizing Love as the highest
principle.

But back to the Monogamy Gene,
there seems some encoded limitation
within our DNA that gives some
people advantage over others in this
same regard.

Evolutionarily, it may be that the
Monogamy Gene gave advantage
from a Physical Standpoint, that
family units had better chances
for survival, with the trade-off that
they were spiritually disempowered
from associating high states of
Love to anything outside this
family unit.

This relates to the Neuro Linguistic
Programming science where things
become neuro-associated. In this
case, Love becomes neuro-associated
to Sex with their mate or Paternal
Love to their other immediate
family members. Love is associated
to few others.

It may be that the cultural barriers
that afflict the world from realizing
the potential of ONE Love, may
have evolved out of our innate
DNA programming.

Has humanity hit the limit of its
biotechnological capabilities in
a spiritual sense?

Like a Monkey, Pat

[Rod Johnson]

This dialogue is for those who like to follow a technical discussion
without

the need for amorphous humanistic terms.

waterflame5 wrote:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web1/afarrell.html



In this whole philosophical idea of ONE, could there be a genetic
predisposition that fosters that consciousness? Like some sort of
Darwinism? Could the people who have this gene more easily grasp this
concept, could it come more naturally to them?



Rod] A straight and direct answer is yes! However, the whole of the
answer lies in neurological subtleties coded within the DNA that are
related to mating.

Pat] But back to the Monogamy Gene, there seems some encoded limitation
within our DNA that gives some people advantage over others in this
same regard.

Rod] Genes are somewhat limited in that they prescribe physical
characteristics. The Neuro Linguistic connections come into play
with DNA coding both within and between genes. This function of DNA
is almost infinite. So the mating syndrome is very complex.

Pat] Evolutionarily, it may be that the Monogamy Gene gave advantage
from a Physical Standpoint, that family units had better chances
for survival,?

Rod] The subtle purposes of the mating syndrome is for social
survival through optimal characteristics within genes combinations.
The choosing factors, at our standard level of genetic evolution, are
mostly subconscious. Also they are cyclic individual to individual.
That means if free choice is allowed the subconscious and
spontaneous mating combinations can come about. In the
cyclic aspects some individuals would bond and procreate in a
life long pattern of monogamy and others would bond in cyclic
patterns of serial monogamy. This freedom of choice is essential
to the emergence of optimal genetic characteristics which make
a society survival strong. The ONE love ideal is essential to the
preservation of freedom of choice.



Pat] It may be that the cultural barriers that afflict the world from
realizing the potential of ONE Love, may have evolved out of our innate
DNA programming.



Rod] The integrative quality of DNA programming is the grist and meal of
EGO. Its beauty in creation is to facilitate the modes and levels of
Soul experience and progression. That gets us down to the two basic
behavioral characteristics of STS and STO. The most viable behaviors for
STS are domination and control. Their results are negative social order.
The two most viable behaviors for STO are unqualified acceptance of
rightful choice and the unconditional facilitations of real life needs.

Pat] Has humanity hit the limit of its biotechnological capabilities
in a spiritual sense?

Rod]In genetics jargon, The inheritance of quantitative characteristics
depends on several genes. That is the factor of DNA within and between
genes and is called polygenic inheritance. This factor is sex linked and
the basis for optimum social survival characteristics. A combination of
genetic and environmental influences is known as multifactorial
inheritance. Some of these factors are society bound and Neuro-Linguistic.

By the nature of the genetic possibilities all of the inherited
characteristics are distributed within a gene pool based on statically
cyclic possibilities. For these possibilities to be maintained within
optimum parameters, freedom of choice as tied to deeper subconscious
instincts must be allowed to prevail. Hence,when structures of society,
monogamy, plurality, notions of royalty, religious and clannish
preferences corrupt free choice in personal mating societies become
progressively weaker.

Long term Monogamy, cereal monogamy or poly-fidelity can be either the
inventions of personal insecurity or the validations of rightful choice
in mating.

Sharing in the more technical,

Rod

>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=5_eqTUP6Dvnnj5PGDh1e0fcqbGhcbBBS4gLG5t PkpphV1Z4oiMEQptRSSB8R5heQBIbBEZFrYuu81loHjEvhdjIC E1ChEMfLvjIyNA)
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>

[waterflame5]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=TCQ4ZaKuQB_M_FSDttz-dyGYjjelHiFiXnrHzboJt3QJms9njuN1P15Mb9SPT-0owV6i_hoDVX3-uB5wYg), Rod Johnson <rodj@2...> wrote:
> Pat]
> In this whole philosophical idea of ONE, could there be a genetic
> predisposition that fosters that consciousness? Like some sort of
> Darwinism? Could the people who have this gene more easily grasp
> this concept, could it come more naturally to them?
>
> Rod] A straight and direct answer is yes! However, the whole of the
> answer lies in neurological subtleties coded within the DNA that are
> related to mating.

Okay related to that is the concept of photogenics.
That is this old term, "beauty adorns virtue"...that
peoples physical structure could likely influence
their ability to ressonate love and hence their virtue.
It spills right into diet, exercise, and environment,
loving yourself...

> Pat] But back to the Monogamy Gene, there seems some encoded
> limitationwithin our DNA that gives some people advantage
> over others in this same regard.
>
> Rod] Genes are somewhat limited in that they prescribe physical
> characteristics. The Neuro Linguistic connections come into play
> with DNA coding both within and between genes. This function of DNA
> is almost infinite. So the mating syndrome is very complex.

Mating aside, there may be some fundamental component that
allows some people greater ease in loving a greater number
of people on a deep level. Think about feeling the love of
a dear mate with other people, yet without the mating and
you get a sense of what may be possible. Some people have
an easier time at this and this is the advantage I'm talking
about. Can we separate mating from deeper states of love?

> Pat] Evolutionarily, it may be that the Monogamy Gene gave advantage
> from a Physical Standpoint, that family units had better chances
> for survival,?
>
> Rod] The subtle purposes of the mating syndrome is for social
> survival through optimal characteristics within genes combinations.
> The choosing factors, at our standard level of genetic evolution,
> are mostly subconscious. Also they are cyclic individual to
> individual.
> That means if free choice is allowed the subconscious and
> spontaneous mating combinations can come about. In the
> cyclic aspects some individuals would bond and procreate in a
> life long pattern of monogamy and others would bond in cyclic
> patterns of serial monogamy. This freedom of choice is essential
> to the emergence of optimal genetic characteristics which make
> a society survival strong. The ONE love ideal is essential to the
> preservation of freedom of choice.

I assume there is a monogamy gene, that component that
fosters cohesive family units without the diffusive
distraction of multiple mate complexes. Now is there
disadvantage of a cohesive family structure in that
it limits one from exploring these high states of love
outside of the family unit and outside of mating.

> Pat] It may be that the cultural barriers that afflict
> the world from realizing the potential of ONE Love, may
> have evolved out of our innate DNA programming.

> Rod] The integrative quality of DNA programming is the grist
> and meal of EGO. Its beauty in creation is to facilitate the
> modes and levels of Soul experience and progression. That gets
> us down to the two basic behavioral characteristics of STS and
> STO. The most viable behaviors for STS are domination and control.
> Their results are negative social order.
> The two most viable behaviors for STO are unqualified acceptance of
> rightful choice and the unconditional facilitations of real life
> needs.

Fundamentally we all desire to be loved. We need love.
That we mostly neuro-associate the highest states of
love to mating is a limitation. That these states are
available outside of mating is not common knowledge.

> Pat] Has humanity hit the limit of its biotechnological
> capabilities in a spiritual sense?
>
> Rod]In genetics jargon, The inheritance of quantitative
> characteristics depends on several genes. That is the
> factor of DNA within and between genes and is called
> polygenic inheritance. This factor is sex linked and
> the basis for optimum social survival characteristics.
> A combination of genetic and environmental influences
> is known as multifactorial inheritance. Some of these
> factors are society bound and Neuro-Linguistic.

It may play out that optimal social survival is
evolving toward group consciousness and that some
gene combinations favor that over others which
strive to promote individual EGO elevation.
It may play out that group consciousness can come
from an ability to love many on a deep level.

> By the nature of the genetic possibilities all of the
> inherited characteristics are distributed within a gene
> pool based on statically cyclic possibilities. For these
> possibilities to be maintained within optimum parameters,
> freedom of choice as tied to deeper subconscious instincts
> must be allowed to prevail. Hence,when structures of society,
> monogamy, plurality, notions of royalty, religious and
> clannish preferences corrupt free choice in personal mating,
> societies become progressively weaker.

In other words, putting conditions on love fouls it up.
And the answer you reveal is that our biotechnological
limit may simply come down to matters of choice.

> Long term Monogamy, cereal monogamy or poly-fidelity
> can be either the inventions of personal insecurity or
> the validations of rightful choice in mating.

Again mating aside, deep loyal friendships can
mature into deeper states of love which are otherwise
unavailable from shallow short term relationships.
This too may offer evolutionary advantage, sticking
it out through good times and bad.

> Sharing in the more technical,
> Rod

There is a great saying,
"love the folks in front of you."
which may be possible by remaining
in the present moment. Can you
love them equally as deep, as well?
Gratefully, Pat