Comments on: “Men do everything they do in order to get…” (Or, they did it for the nookie)

By: Arthur H.

Arthur H. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:47:58 +0000

Hey Geoff J., sorry to solicit you this way, but I’m looking to send you an email? Is there a place I can contact you? Or can you send an email to this one? Thanks.

By: Walt Eddy

Walt Eddy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:08:33 +0000

Okay, I understand. I guess I need to go back and read more carefully some of the other posts on the garden, on Adam, and on the nature of man, both physical and spiritual, relative to evolution. Anyway, I’ll be waiting to see how your beliefs on these subjects evolves and how this discussion plays out from here on out. :)

Love the posts and the thoughts expressed and explored here, though.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:17:32 +0000

Walt,

I haven’t fully decided yet what I believe regarding Adam (literal vs figurative etc.) so it is a little dicey to start talking making pre-Adam and post-Adam distinctions. I will say that I am not convinced that spiritless pre-humans ever existed. So I can’t really answer your questions because I find myself tripped up by the assumptions that your questions are based upon.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:09:56 +0000

Zen (#58). Thanks for the link. That is an interesting read that is definitely right up the alley of what we are talking about here.

By: Walt Eddy

Walt Eddy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:54:51 +0000

Geoff, I guess it goes to the nature of evolution and its realm.

You, as I understand it, tend to accept Kanazawa’s analysis relative to pre-Adamic man’s sex drive — men’s willingness to do anything in order to get “it” — in post-Adamic man, but apparently subject to post-Adamic man’s free agency (Somehow through the spirit?).

Now, post-Adamic man seems to be on the precipice of cloning, which could conceivably tend toward eliminating the necessity for nookie. Or do you simply foreclose that as a possibility? Or perhaps cloning would just result in a pre-Adamic man. If not, is it the evolution of the natural man beyond nookie or does it stem from the spirit side of post-Adamic man?

It’s very possible, however, that I am just confused about your position on the evolution of the natural man and of evolution as it pertains to the man who allows the spirit to choose the right. Does the post-Adamic man who always chooses the right foreclose evolution?

Anyway, just my thoughts/questions.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:55:35 +0000

Mark (#58),

I am not sure why you think any of that constitutes a problem. (I get the feeling you are looking beyond the mark a little here but I may be wrong.)

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:52:58 +0000

I don’t understand your question Walt.

By: Walt Eddy

Walt Eddy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:03:39 +0000

So this conversation brings to my mind the question of whether it is the natural man or the spiritual man that seems to be evolving beyond the necessity for sex as in it being possible to simply clone offspring? Or is that just unthinkable and beyond the pale of what HF would ever permit? And how does that possibly impact the necessity of nookie question?

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:38:53 +0000

The problem with the theory that it is the dominant factor is that men are or become cognizant of the higher social purpose of sexuality, and as soon as that awareness is established, one can no longer claim that sex in and of itself is the primary motivation for men to succeed.

In traditional terms, this is the argument that men largely do not have a second nature (informed by morality and rationality) but only a first (informed by lust). The doctrine of total depravity, more or less.

By: Zen

Zen — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:04:08 +0000

As fantastic as this conversation is, it would really be enhanced by looking at the work by Baumeiter – where he puts some meat on the bones, so to speak, and fleshes out these theories with a bit more evidence.

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm