Curtis,

I will respond in more depth later today, but I yield to you on the question of Derbyshire's definition. The need for words to talk about observed phenomena still exists. As does the claim that, whatever you wish to call it, adult male-adult male "homosexual orientation" in preference to a substitute is a novel innovation.

adult male-adult male “homosexual orientation” in preference to a substitute is a novel innovation

Substitute gets at the answer, as does preference.

At present, I'm not as concerned with drawing the line back to the dawn of humanity -- I doubt we can trace most social structures, psychological traits, language use, tool-use, and even tools (such as the Internet!) all the way back to the dawn of humanity; but that does not mean that they are not valid or 'naturally' occurring.

But without going so far back, we can find early examples of, if not actual relationships (which were perhaps not chronicled, rather than nonexistent), then at least the concept of exclusive adult male-adult male homosexuality. Ancient China, for instance, provides evidence in the form of stories about such relationships, or fables. The story "The Two Old Men," written during the Qing Dynasty, relates a young man's description of discovering two such men in a wood, while lost:

"Then I saw from afar the roof of a house in the middle of the wood. I rushed towards it, but then I thought it might be a brigends' den, that I might be killed. So I crouched down in the grass, watching the situation.

"Quite a while passed, and then two old men, holding hands, laughing and talking, came out and sat on a rock. They embraced, one against the other: they seemed really indecently intimate! Then the old man on the left pulled the other and had him crouch down beside the rock; their attitude was lustful and indecent. I stayed hidden, spying on them, afraid that they might kill me to shut my mouth. I was terrified, rolled up like a worm, not daring to move, when they saw me.

"Not in the least ashamed, they both called to me to come out..."

There are earlier examples, from the Warring States period, the Ming period, etc.

In the 17C., the Japanese writer Ihara Saikaku wrote of male love in a series of stories, called collectively "The Great Mirror of Male Love." Many of these stories concern what we would nowadays consider "boy love," or love between an adolescent and an adult male. But many others are centered on the "Kabuki boy actors" who were visited by adult fans and sometimes kept as favorites. That may seem like an example of adult-adolescent homosexual relationship, or of prostitution. However,

In the old days, boy love was something rough and brawny. Men swaggered when they spoke. They preferred big, husky boys and bore cuts on their bodies as a sign of male love. This spirit reached even to boy actors, all of whom brandished swords. It goes without saying that such behavior is no longer appreciated...Boys these days are expected to be delicate, nothing more.

[from "Who Wears the Incense Graph Dyed in Her Heart?"]

These boy actors apparently spent a life, or as much of it as they could, as boy actors, in order to receive such attention. In "Bamboo Clappers Strike the Hateful Numbers," the story begins,

When being entertained by a Kabuki boy actor, one must be careful never to ask his age.

In that story, a group of Kabuki actors visiting a monk attempt to hide their ages -- "Not one of them was under twenty-two years of age!" -- and one unfortunate actor is revealed by a magic bamboo clapper to be thirty-eight!

Now, it might be convenient for a heterosexualist (ideologue) to say that Ihara Saikaku wrote either of boy love or prostitution, and that prostitution or "part-time homosexuality" for describing the men who visited these actors might often be correct, but explaining why a thirty-eight year old (or any number in their twenties) would so scrupulously hide their ages via, recourse to arguments about "prostitution" and a need for an income, would seem biased. These are, after all, only stories; but they do describe a "preference" (in these Kabuki actors) for adult male-adult male homosexual orientation "in preference to a substitute." So the idea has been around for some time.

As you seem to write, the Japanese appears to be a story combining prostitution and ephebophilia.

I don't understand the ad homonem "it might be convenient for a heterosexualist (ideologue) to say that Ihara Saikaku wrote either of boy love or prostitution." The question would seem to be what Saikaku actually wrote, and it appears to be rather clear. If an unproblematic example of "adult male-adult adult" love can be found in Saikaku, please describe it. Else you should question the quality of your evidence!

You don't date "The Two Old Men" or give a link to the rest of the story. Yet even if one assumes it is neither satirical nor comical nor farcical, I note that it was written under the Qing (the last of the "Chinese" dynasties, but actually an occupation force from Manchuria). This is like attempting to establish the ancient pedigree of "homosexual orientation" in India with evidence that writers described it under Victoria!

So again, the claim that "homosexual orientation" is not a recent innovation is without evidence. The oldest European written works (by Homer) are more than two millenia old. Yet it seems nothing can be found of the "homosexual orientation" more than a few centuries back. The "heterosexual orientation," pedophilia, ephebophilia, rape, religious sex, and many other variations can be found even in ancient writings. But not this.

(As I mentioned before, I must respond to the rest of your post later today.)

I don’t understand the ad homonem “it might be convenient for a heterosexualist (ideologue) to say that Ihara Saikaku wrote either of boy love or prostitution.” The question would seem to be what Saikaku actually wrote, and it appears to be rather clear. If an unproblematic example of “adult male-adult adult” love can be found...

Can proof of God be found, or should we believe that the Objectivists are right: no archeological or other concrete evidence of God's existence exists, thus God has never existed nor now existed?

The problem is your search for concrete evidence of exclusive adult male-adult male relationships. Relationships are never fossilized, so you may be safe in your argument, if that is your argument. Saikaku was not documenting actual relationships, but writing stories, and in at least one of them, he suggests a thirty-eight year old Kabuki "boy actor" and many others in their twenties. Actual Kubuki actors were not born in the theater (I'm assuming this, since I don't know the full history of the Kabuki theater), and one might wonder why they would choose to remain so long in the theater...but Saikaku's framing of these actors, in fictional stories, should be proof that the concept of adult male-adult male homosexual orientation has existed, regardless of what actually occurred.

But even the argument for prostitution as an answer to that story only reinforces what I have already suggested in this post: That traditional heterosexual marriage formed a bedrock for the society constructed around strong family structures:

Prostitution, then, could possibly be an avenue within the system for homosexuals to find security without having to marry women and perpetuate the traditional family structures. Some may say that it was a purely economic choice for these actors -- "poor straight boys forced to engage in homosex!" -- and while that may often be true for hustlers and prostitutes, it may not be true for all of them, or not the entire motivation.

Furthermore, if many adult men visited these actors -- some of whom were obviously no longer adolescents -- while maintaining families and wives elsewhere, this might only show the strength of that Great Cog I've mentioned elsewhere. These men may have had a preference for adult male-adult male relationships or sex, but have also known that their livlihood, not to mention their names and social worth/networks, required an established heterosexual relationship in the form of traditional marriage. I.e., if their only alternative was to become a Kabuki actor or a prostitute on the street, they may have followed the heterosexual model.

Finally, I think we can all agree that the incidence of heterosexuality -- even forms of pedophilia, etc. -- is greater than the incidence of homosexuality. Societies grew strong by not only supporting the majority orientations but also by utilizing that majority, thus creating resilience for the society. This might have an effect beyond the catch-22's offered to homosexuals, since most chronicled relationships of the ancient and old worlds -- actual relationships -- were relationships of the well-known and well-placed. In order to maintain their positions, they would have needed to maintain their heterosexual marriages, their families (for heirs and dynasty), and their places within society. Whatever exclusive same-sex relationships occurred would have occurred outside the "network" and would therefore have been much less likely to have been chronicled. So the argument that no exclusive adult male-adult male relationships have been chronicled in the ancient world holds very little water for me; it has so many holes.

When Pan Zhang was young he had a beautiful [mei] appearance and bearing, and so people of that time were exceedingly fond of him. Wang Zhongxian of the state of Chu heard of his reputation and came to request his writings. Thereafter Wang Zhongxian wanted to study together with him. They fell in love at first sight and were as affectionate as husband and wife, sharing the same coverlet and pillow with unbounded intimacy for one another.

Afterwards they died together and everyone mourned them. When they were buried together at Lofu Mountain, on the peak a tree with long branches and leafy twigs suddenly grew. All of these embraced one another! At the time people considered this a miracle. It was called the "Shared Pillow Tree."'

[from the Warring States period; link]

...met when they were young, studied together, lived together, died together, were mourned together. But this in only a story -- an old story.

Can proof of God be found, or should we believe that the Objectivists are right: no archaeological or other concrete evidence of God’s existence exists, thus God has never existed nor now existed?

A misdirection -- unless you want to equate "homosexual orientation" with superstitious mumbo-jumbo (that if, if you want to retreat into a "faith" in the existence of "homosexual orientation" outside of anything that is detectable by scientific means).

Perhaps a better parallel would be ask if proof of belief in the existence of God can be found in ancient texts, and there the answer is a thousand times yes.

Much of the rest of your comment tries to excuse the reason why there is no ambiguous references to "homosexual orientation." These may or may not be valid excuses, but the fact remains that there is an enormous historical period where no clear references to "homosexual orientation" can be found.

The last portion of your comment gives an incomplete excerpt of an undated story in a contemporary English translation. This is similar to saying that the "homosexual orientation" existed in the Danelaw because the magazine The Advocate exists now!

Interestingly, the link you gives seems to support my argument more than yours. In its introduction, it seems to imply that the "homosexual orientation" (which it calls "modern homosexual") emerged sometime between the late 19th century and 1940. These are later dates than I supposed, but they agree with my (and Derbyshire's) view that "homosexual orientation" is a recent construct.

No Dan, what I am saying is this: that an absence of proof of existence is not itself proof of non-existence. That should be pretty basic logic, and I'm surprised that I would need to explain it to you.

You have your magic faith built on a lack of evidence -- or, that is, on what you believe is a lack of evidence, since you refuse to consider context in your search. What, no long annals and chronicles celebrating exclusive homosexuality? Ah, then it did not exist! What, writing from the Chinese that Curtis did not post in the orginial Chinese? A damned homosexualist must have translated it!! (Or else, a misguided ideologue, if not a damned one...!) (Of course, that site is exactly right, when it talks about the known affairs from ancient Greece or asserts something about "modern homosexuality" -- so it's really pick-n-choose your evidence,eh!)

The truth is, there is a long historical period when many texts do not exist -- at least, except for those transcribed by Christian monks and priests, devout Muslim scholars, etc. But, well, I'm sure that they would have gladly conserved text which rejoiced in exclusive adult homosexual relationships, right? (Yes, I know there is Plato, and others, but I suspect that you will have a very good excuse for the Symposium.) Now, given the fact that at least 95% of all the people living through the Middle Ages were probably heterosexual (for sake of argument), and that such a very, very small percentage of all people ever wrote an essay, poem, etc., that would have been preserved...But that's too much context, isn't it Dan? Given the very little writing that remains, complete, from antiquity, and given the same consideration of percentages...Ah, too much context, too inconvenient!

But if you had only paid attention in class, Dan, you would have seen that I gave a reason why "homosexualism" is on the increase. This debate over homosexuality, or an orientation, is merely your argument that it's a choice and not biologically driven, or else an argument that whatever drives it did not exist before the modern era. You do not seem able to separate orientation (homo-, hetero-, bi-, ephebo-, whatever) from advocacy, ideology, etc. Until you are able to do so, I doubt you will gain much from this series of posts.

The last portion of your comment gives an incomplete excerpt of an undated story in a contemporary English translation. This is similar to saying that the “homosexual orientation” existed in the Danelaw because the magazine The Advocate exists now!

--arguments like this are extremely ludicrous. In fact, if you can not achieve something of more quality, you should refrain from wasting my time.

I'm going to venture a comment even though I have only scanned this exhausting dialogue.

Whatever Derbyshire meant by "homosexualist," it's obvious that the term would appeal to someone who thinks the orientation is learned rather than innate, and therefore subject to correction.

Curtis,

I hope I did not anger you. That certainly was not my intention.

I agree that absence of evidence does not logically mean evidence of absence. For historical questions I prefer a historical methodology to pure logic, however. Here's an example:

If an action is reviled and believed to exist one might expect it to be censored from the descriptions of persons the writer admired and added as an insult to those the writer dislike. Sure enouugh ,both the early Christians and their Roman nemeses accused each other of cannibalism and loose sex (including with other men). Thus we can imply that cannibalism and loose sex (including with other men) were both reviled and both believed to exist.

Now, perhaps the "homosexual orientation" was not reviled. But then why then was it not mentioned as a matter of course?

However, if something does not exist, we can expect no references to it. There are no references to Imperial Chinese fleets bombarding the port of Alexandria in the early 2nd century. Thus, we would not base further historical theories on claims of that bombardment's existence.

Now, it would be misleading to say that, just because we have no evidence of something, it is not true. As I recall, there was no available evidence for centuries that a collection of structures in southern France called "the shepherds' huts" was formerly the capital of a hitherto lost Dark Ages kingdom. It turned out it was. New evidence came to light, and old assumptions were revisited.

I agree with your original comment on family structures. As I mentioned, I have not had time to reply to your original post. And this side discussion is so interesting!

I'm not sure why my criticism about undated manuscripts is ludicrous. The previous story quotation you gave came from "modern" China (indeed, the Qing dynasty rose centuries after the decline of medievalism in Europe).

I am enjoying this series, and am thankful for the time you spent on it.

Dan, you didn't anger me, beyond the sort of anger I exhibit when I'm incredibly frustrated. Actually, you gave me a headache, and I had to pop two pills to get rid of it.

"Orientation" is a very difficult subject. For instance, since getting rid of my headache I've been wondering if you would consider something I have considered: You and I might suppose a distinction between ephebophilia and adult homosexual orientation, but what if the ancients didn't always distinguish the two?

After all, ephebophilia is defined as sexual attraction to postpubescent adolescents, and many cultures have associated adulthood with postpubescence. (Remember, also, our consideration on tdaxp of lowering the age of consent as an effort to reduce sexual child abuse by applying marginalism...)

The most known Classical example of an avowed belief in a naturally occurring male homosexuality is Plato's Symposium; the "original creatures" proposed by that story would seek their entire lives for their other halves, which in two cases out of three were of the same sex, until they found them. We might say that we only have records of actual homosexual practices based on power structures (adult-youth, adult-slave) in ancient Greece, and claim that the Symposium is addressing that (as other works by Plato certainly did, when discussing the lover and beloved), but I find it difficult to dismiss the story altogether as a case of a description of ephebophilia as you have been explaining it. Without quoting at length here (because I am tired of doing that, actually), I would point out that although the speaker says that the same-sex male would seek adult men when young and seek male youths when old, this orientation toward being with the same sex followed him all his life; and, when old, these men

are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children, which they do, if at all, only in obedience to the law, but are satisfied if they may be allowed to live unwedded...

[Benjamin Jowett translation]

Is it not possible that the youth's choice of older partner, the older man's choice of a youth as partner are simply two expressions of the same thing, in Plato's mind? Also, since such relationships are generally interpreted nowadays as reflecting power structures, would it not therefore be plausible to say that those power structures might have had a very strong influence on the way that orientation is expressed, throughout such a man's lifetime (at least in Plato's mind, as related in the essay)?

You and I might suppose a distinction between ephebophilia and adult homosexual orientation, but what if the ancients didn’t always distinguish the two?

...

Is it not possible that the youth’s choice of older partner, the older man’s choice of a youth as partner are simply two expressions of the same thing, in Plato’s mind?

I think I answered this in my above comments. Is it not possible that some chronicler who recorded rowdy Roman sailors in Alexandria merely did not distinguish between Roman and Chinese? Yes it is possible. Is this conclusion justified from the evidence? No.

Now (still while avoiding comments on your original post, because this thread is too interesting) you hit upon something interesting:

This debate over homosexuality, or an orientation, is merely your argument that it’s a choice and not biologically driven, or else an argument that whatever drives it did not exist before the modern era

...

would it not therefore be plausible to say that those power structures might have had a very strong influence on the way that orientation is expressed, throughout such a man’s lifetime

Sexual orientation may have a genetic component. Ultimately, that means nearly nothing, because when scientists do genetic correlational studies they qualify it by saying ".... within a culture... "

Thus saying that a genotype (genetic structure) that now expresses a phenotype (in this case, the "homosexual orientation") did not express it in the past in now way establishes the ancient providence of that phenotype.

Dan, I've been rethinking our debate, from a different perspective, with two things in mind:

1. My earlier comments (within the post):

verbal gymnastics would be pointless if we did not look deeper to find how our ideology influences our activity and how our being influences our ideology and how our ideology influences our being.

For instance, an ideology not only determines types of political activism -- ideology consciously directed outward on a culture -- but also may be directed toward one's self, particularly in the labeling of one's self. I.e., I might have a self, but I may also have a theory of my self, or an "ideology of myself." This is old hat, really, because it's been expressed in the cliche that there are three of us: who we really are, who we believe we are, and how others see us. So if we interpret the term "homosexualist" to mean one who expresses a particular ideology, the term might then also apply to those who define themselves as "homosexuals" or as "gays," and such labeling might also influence the personal interactions of these people (not only their political, journalistic, scholarly activism.)

I have begun to think this is how you see the term and how you use it. Your last comment about different phenotypes is one indication of such thinking, but also perhaps your seeming confusion of a person's being with that person's ideology. I'm not sure that ideology can change being, but ideology might influence how that being is expressed -- but still, without changing that being. Furthermore, we can turn the argument around to address "how others see us", since others can only see our actions and must infer from those our being. If our actions have been influenced by our ideology of self, then it would be understandable that others might believe they see our self when viewing our actions: they, the others, have an ideology of self also, not only an ideology of their selves but also an ideology of our selves. However, it is quite possible, perhaps even very likely, that another's ideology of my self is really an ideology of my ideology, since they may be observing and judging the actions which have been influenced by my own ideology of self. If they go no further than to see how my own ideology influences my activity, their ideology of me may go no further than back to my ideology (of my self.) So use of the term "homosexualist" to refer to something about me, for instance, might only be a result of their ideology of their selves -- influencing their action to label me homosexualist -- founded on an interpretation of my own ideology's influence on my activity. The term might not really get at my being, but only at my ideology. If I use the term "heterosexualist," I am doing the same.

The problem with these terms, then, is that they may only be a back-and-forth contest or categorization which involves ideologies rather than beings: a great wall between people, inhibiting their understanding of each other. Understanding a person's ideology is understanding something about that person, but not a close understanding of the whole person.

2. You'll really like this consideration, I think:

The term "sexual orientation" has in it "orientation," and so I've been considering OODA loops.

What is interesting, and may be flippant if expressed now this freely, is that I detect in people a desire to assume that the decision process precedes the orientation process, vis-a-vis homosexuality and a "homosexual orientation."

Others believe that the orientation precedes the decision.

If, however, we consider what I have just mentioned above about ideologies and your own considerations, then we might say that decisions of how to act might be influenced by those ideologies. Now we must wonder where in relation to the OODA loop these ideologies are placed; and where, the being or genetic or other biological predispositions.

Many of the considerations in my original post have focused on the very first stage, the Observation stage. E.g., a male with a predisposition for desiring male sexual companions (and perhaps, "life partners") may have observed all the outside influences -- his environment -- in ancient Greece and then oriented toward an ideology of self that included legal marriage, etc. as well as outlets for that homosexual predisposition. When he decided his actions, those actions may have flowed from such an orientation. Such a male today might observe different situations in our own culture which would orient him differently and thus perhaps lead to a different ideology.

Then, of course, what you in particular have been calling "homosexualism" could well be on the increase now, for these reasons. This is also the sort of framework I've used for my post above.

But I think we must not forget to consider where genetic or biological predispositions fit in relation to the OODA loop. I'm hesitant to say that such predispositions will affect every stage of the loop -- they are the domain, within which the loop operates -- but that may well be exactly what happens. Rather, for now I wonder if such predispositions have a larger bearing on the first two stages of the loop than on the latter two stages. In fact, such predispositions may precede the loop, since there must be a being before there can be cognition.

To put that last thought into context, without really equating the subjects in my metaphor, we might consider whether Asperger's Syndrome or autism is relatively new to the modern world because we have no written proof that the ancients had concepts of either of those -- even if we could pore through the records searching for physical displays reminiscent of those two conditions. (Or, consider schizophrenia and certain demon-possessed characters in the Bible...) But either of these two conditions will severly affect a person's ability to observe, thus greatly influencing that person's way of orienting -- or of creating an ideology. For another example: in ancient Greece, there were those who oriented toward an exclusive heterosexual expression of their sexuality, not just those who swung both ways. (If memory serves me well, such people were often derided by the sort that swung both ways.)

[I may not need to reiterate, but I will anyway: these are subjects in metaphor. I am not equating sexual orientation with autism or schizophrenia. Although, quite honestly, I'm not certain they are entirely unalike -- including heterosexuality in the metaphor, of course -- which is why I've used them in metaphor.]

Curtis,

A clarification from myself: if we are discussing an ideology, then obviously it is a recent innovation with likely only a weak connection to genetics. My series, Liberal Education, talks about the competition of ideologies generally.

It is obvious that homosexualism-as-ideology is extremely recent, but obviously that would say little about the ancient providence of the "homosexual orientation."

What I am much more interested in discussing is the "homosexual orientation."

I do not understand what you mean by "a person's being." Can you clarify?

Dan,

First, a consideration of ideologies: What are they?

Second, what do ideologies try to address or describe?

Third, to what degree do our own self-descriptions represent a type of ideology, an "ideology of self" as I've used it in the last comment. (Unlike, say, a religious ideology which attempts to address the divine or spiritual aspects or parts of the world, or a political ideology that attempts to address a polity and its government, etc. I.e., can there be an "ideology of self" that one might form in consideration of himself or even of another self?)

But along with these three considerations, we should probably take it as a given that some thinking being must exist before an ideology can exist. I don't want to belabor this point, but if you think we should, we can.

If a thinking being must exist before an ideology can exist, I find the proposition interesting that: such a being, through thinking, can develop an ideology about his entire thought processes. I find this interesting because the thought process that leads to an ideology would be examining itself for the duration required to form that ideology, if he were trying to form a complete ideology of his thought/thinking. As for "ideology of self"...well, there are similar problems; yet, I think this is exactly what people do when the form an image or interpretation of themselves.

So I suppose I should answer the first question with a ballpark definintion. When I think of ideologies, I think of paradigms. Roughly speaking. Ideologies are the "Big Picture" we form to address a set of observations, and within the OODA loop, they would form somewhere between O and O but become fixed, if even only temporarily, before D or A. (On the next iteration of the loop, they may change.)

But if a thinking being must exist before an ideology can exist, then certainly preconditions will set limits on what can be observed, and these preconditions will filter down to the rest of the OODA loop. An example: we only see a small range of the electromagnetic spectrum, so if we are relying on sight, we might walk into an area with a high concentration of X-rays without knowing it -- or sunbathe without protection because we are unaware of UV radiation. Either can be detrimental to us, but our limited sight cannot protect us from them, alone. A person born blind will have similar limitations of observation, thus will have limitations on orientation, decision, and action. The other senses can help a blind person, just as they can help the sighted, but they are also limited.

A child may have all senses functioning at standard levels, but may walk out into a street to get a ball and get hit by a car. This is a limitation in knowledge and wisdom; or else, for child or adult, the limitation may come from internal distraction, e.g., attention deficit disorder perhaps or autism or even merely being extremely focused on getting the ball or the 50-dollar bill lying in the street. Intelligence levels would also affect the ability to observe, I think, if only in the way a person knows there is more to see, more places to look or to observe, or doesn't know this. The point is, a person's being -- which I am most likely to equate to the physical being, even if we do not know exactly how the physical being leads to autism or high intelligence, etc. -- always precedes the OODA loop or sets preconditions affecting the OODA loop.

On the issue of "homosexual orientation," then, we should ask a few things if we are going to utilize our general understanding of the OODA loop to gain a deeper insight of the subject.

First, does the word orientation in the phrase match up with the orient of OODA?

Most gays who use the phrase actually use it to describe the physical being (or preconditions) rather than as we might use the word in OODA: "We're born that way! It's genetic!" etc. In this case, orientation does not match up with orient.

Some others assume that "orientation" follows a decision process: "It's a choice!." I.e., gays have chosen to have a homosexual orientation. This, also, doesn't match up that orientation with the O of OODA, since it would place orientation after decision.

The problem of course: it's a loop. So Johnny is caught having sex with his best friend by his father, is beaten by his father to within an inch of death, this changes Johnny's observation, causes him to reorient, and Johnny's new ideology of self is: I'm a bad person! The action following from this could be suicide, if that's what he decides must happen. Or else, Johnny's new ideology of self might be, I'm an unwelcome person in my own family! -- and so he runs away and becomes a teen hustler on the street, or else goes to live with his best friend and his best friend's mother. Or maybe his new ideology of self is, I'm a bad person but I can become a good person!, and he swears repeatedly to his father, while being beaten, that he will ask Jesus for forgiveness and will "change himself."

After a year of praying and a year of counseling by an unlicensed ex-gay group, Johnny reorients: I'm a heterosexual! He gets married and has three children, works his way up the ladder to assistant manager of the supermarket owned by one of the founders of the ex-gay group, and everything he observes tells him he has finally oriented correctly. All his actions flow from that orientation (ideology), and they lead him to more and more observations, confirmation of previous OODA loop orientations, decisions, and actions -- until Bobby is hired. Uh oh. Bobby's hot -- or so Johnny's observed. Watch out!

Heh.

Sorry, I've been up all night and I'm going on...Anyway, there's something to be asked, and determined, about perpetually looping OODA within a person's life, and whether the extreme number of observations over a lifetime can possibly lead every time to identical or similar orientations if preconditions don't limit the operation of the OODA loop so that observations are limited in such a way that the orientation doesn't alter substantially between iterations of the loop. Some such limitation might be quite external, such as a society's laws and enforcement of laws, including economic as well as martial enforcement, particularly if most people in that society also put their individual weight (force) behind those laws and enforcement. Other limitations are internal or within the individual being, like those addressed above.

This is just my example/consideration of a homosexual or heterosexual "orientation" that fits the OODA loop on the second O.

Your obsession with finding a pedigree seems, quite honestly, odd. I myself have looked long and hard through what I could of the past, for answers, so I'm not deriding the search or the desire to search; but I really do question whether we are talking about the same things when we use the phrase "homosexual orientation." On the one hand, the search for literary references and records -- None exist! Yes they do! -- is all about homosexualism-as-ideology, since looking for terms from the ancient world would be looking for an ideology. The term is the "Big Picture" or summation of a...phenotype, not the actual beings, nor even the actual activities. If we find no terms, that does not mean there were no activities, but only that there was no theory of those activities -- at least no record of a theory that we can find.

Curtis,

Two central points.

First, does the word orientation in the phrase match up with the orient of OODA?

Most gays who use the phrase actually use it to describe the physical being (or preconditions) rather than as we might use the word in OODA: “We’re born that way! It’s genetic!” etc. In this case, orientation does not match up with orient.

Unless a strict genetic determinist model is being argued here, the words "orientaiton" are being used the same way. Genetic factors are part of Orientation, as they are in life. But so is conditioning, cultural factors, synthesis and analysis, etc.

But even more importantly:

Your obsession with finding a pedigree seems, quite honestly, odd. I myself have looked long and hard through what I could of the past, for answers, so I’m not deriding the search or the desire to search; but I really do question whether we are talking about the same things when we use the phrase “homosexual orientation.” On the one hand, the search for literary references and records — None exist! Yes they do! — is all about homosexualism-as-ideology, since looking for terms from the ancient world would be looking for an ideology. The term is the “Big Picture” or summation of a…phenotype, not the actual beings, nor even the actual activities. If we find no terms, that does not mean there were no activities, but only that there was no theory of those activities — at least no record of a theory that we can find.

I think this paragraph is possibly central to the discussion, but I'm confused by your wording. "Ideology" typically means some coherent collection of theories

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Here I am merely looking for historical evidence for an activity. As I wrote above, if the activity was abhored it should have been used as a libel. If the activity was seen neutrally, it should have been recorded as part of the life stories of any number of people. If the activity was seen favorably, it should be recorded as a complement.

Are you arguing that the homosexual orientation is itself an ideology (thus closer to what one might call a "choice" -- influenced by nurture?). Or that an ideology is needed merely to record it? (Perhaps defensible, but then is an "ideology" just as needed to record that the Aegean Sea seperates Asia from Europe?) Or something else? I'm not being argumentative, just confused.

Unless a strict genetic determinist model is being argued here, the words “orientaiton” are being used the same way. Genetic factors are part of Orientation, as they are in life. But so is conditioning, cultural factors, synthesis and analysis, etc.

No, I do not believe so. I think you are dead wrong on this, and I think that diagrams like this diagram are either wrong or perhaps misleading.

Orientation always requires multiple objects; things are "oriented" in relation to each other. For instance, things are synthesized or analyzed when considered together (as the diagram shows) in the mind. But first, they must be observed, unless you are going to argue for innate knowledge -- e.g., innate knowledge of cultural traditions. That, I think, would be an untenable proposition.

Listed in the diagram under Orientation is "New Information." Is that innate knowledge? Nope, don't think so.

The section of Orient in the linked diagram appears to be meant as a kind of "reservoir of knowledge" as well as where and when information is sorted. I.e., new information (including that related to cultural traditions) enters through the observation stage and is synthesized or analyzed, etc., and remains there to affect future data entering through future observation stages: as if Orient is meant to represent two sections of the mind, memory as well as part of the conscious thinking (and perhaps even the subconscious.) This is not very different from my formulation that an ideology becomes at least temporarily "fixed" after Orientation.

But to argue that new information, cultural traditions, and previous experiences reside entirely in the Orientation phase -- or never pass through the Observation phase in any form -- is to argue for a mind entirely separate from the physical world. Once observation has occurred, and then analysis or synthesis, memories may continue to occupy a person's mind, affecting future information, but these memories are only memories, not objective evidence (which is to say, not stimuli from the objective world, or from the physical senses.) I.e., what resides within the mind are only the mind's creations in response to observation, and these continue to interact with each other and with new information entering the mind.

Thus the problem with your formulation is two-fold:

1. Whatever remains within the mind -- a person's ideologies, memories, etc. -- is always contingent or conditional. I.e., when new information enters through the Observation phase, whatever has previously entered into the mind will be brought into conflict with the new information. I say "conflict," but the new information can reinforce, enlarge, re-orient, refute, etc., the ideologies or mental constructs which have hitherto been formed. A person's ability to analyze and/or synthesize that information will play a large role in what occurs, and information that would refute an ideology for one person might not for another, when all things are "weighed together." I suppose that information can be compartmentalized and intentionally or subconsciously kept out of frictional states or conflict/sythesis -- but I also suppose this is less likely to endure over time as more "nodes" are introduced. Because these mental constructs are conditional, they cannot be said to "be" at the Orientation stage: they are always in a state of coming in through Observation, or in flux, as new information enters. However, I know that elsewhere you have argued for insularity as kind of defense of cultural traditions, etc., and I'm not likely to argue against any person's ability for self-delusion...

2. That last statement, and the statement about a person's ability to analyze information affecting what happens when new information enters, may seem like an argument that genetic heritage resides within the Orientation phase, but it's not. Although you have said that genetic heritage is in the Orientation phase, I think you mean, it greatly affects a person's ability to Orient, or else that it "force-orients" us. After all, if it's the brain's memory and ability to analyze or sythesize that defines Orientation, then the very physical brain, a result of our genes, would be at Orientation...But I think that vis-a-vis the OODA loop, genetic heritage "force-orients" us through the observation stage. The OODA loop is intended to apply to a decision-making process, and I suppose that process can be conscious or subconscious; but either way, it needs information for it to work. The Observation stage is how concrete information is fed (or, transmuted) into the loop, whether that is information of an entirely exterior environment or information related to a person's genetic being. The OODA loop addresses cognition, not being; being must precede the OODA loop, as must the concrete world.

I sometimes seem to detect in your theory a belief in demons and angels as Cause of homosexuality and perhaps as Cause of the "global emergence" of homosexualism. Neither ever existed before, they're just popping up now, all over the place. Heh. Even if a person were to entirely decide a homosexuality for himself, the reason for that would be...what, exactly? Even Boyd's OODA conceptualization appears to be a Magic Cloud, as is -- on the surface, anyway, "genetic heritage" and "cultural traditions" are taken for granted, as if magically appearing where they have been put into the equation.

I still have your other recent considerations in mind, but it seems my responses are growing too long as-is.

[I'm actually contemplating tying these posts to another on-going debate over a different "global emergence." heh.]

Curtis,

As they are used in the OODA Loop, Observation::New Information and Obervation::Previous Experience are sub-processes that work on the "new information" and "previous experience" already observed. Thus brute facts are observed and oriented on. The only exception is "genetic heritage," which also serves as a bootstrap.

Remember that the entirety of Orientation, which is made of a neural network of Orientation's sub-processes, holds "implicit guidance and control" over both Observation and Action.

Arguing that anything is "popping up now, all over the place" would seem to trivialize geographic analysis in general, let alone the socio-economic analysis you engage in above, &c. Hmmm... seems like a job for Catholicgauze...

Three more things:

1. On the issue of insularity. Limiting Observation purposely -- just like having accidental or circumstantial limitations on Observation -- can lead to a kind of insularity and self-referential processes, in which new information is ignored or even compartmentalized or kept from modifying previous experience through the processes of analysis and synthesis. While I think it would be useful to consider an OODA within the Orientation phase -- and, I suspect something like that is intended for the feedback loops drawn into the naive OODA loop -- I think we could metaphorize it differently: One may Observe memories and the like, or the internal environment of the mind, without necessarily needing observation of the outer environment. This is probably most of what happens within the Orient phase, especially as one grows older and has developed larger internal environments (memory-sets and previous analysis-sets.)

Unfortunately, such a sub-process or sub-OODA can lead to orthodoxy that is quite self-referential, and thus to solipsism. To say that,

the entirety of Orientation, which is made of a neural network of Orientation’s sub-processes, holds “implicit guidance and control” over both Observation and Action.

is not to say anything about how this works, but requires that we take it on faith that "implicit control" occurs. To some degree, a failure to understand what is conscious, what is subconscious, and what is unconscious probably leads to what you are calling "implicit guidance and control." But I think it is far too easy to accept the notion of "implicit control" as an orthodoxy in OODA theory, and that such acceptance operates as a kind of insulary and foundation for self-referential ideology.

2. There is a difference, I think, between noting emergent phenomena (Observation) and Orienting such observation (analysis/synthesis) -- and a person's orienting with such observations. For instance, when you say,

Arguing that anything is “popping up now, all over the place” would seem to trivialize geographic analysis in general, let alone the socio-economic analysis you engage in above...

something in your observation of what I said did not make it to your orientation phase uncorrupted! When I mentioned "demons and angels," I meant to imply that a person can limit or stop the Observation of emergence in such a way that Orientation must assume magical forces for an explanation of that emergence. Gaps in the observation of phenomena lead to self-referential OODA loops within the Orient phase, and either magical theories are born (we fill the gaps somewhat arbitrarily, from memory of past events or concrete phenomena -- which may not be identicals to the current concrete phenomenon) or else no motivation or concrete cause can be seen and thus neither are acknowledged as existing or both are assumed to be non-existent. So one can say that global emergence is occurring without making a magical analysis of "No concrete causes exist for these phenomena!" or "Only subjective choice must be behind such emergence!" In the second case, subjective choice assumes an entirely immaterial (non-concrete) cause......i.e., we're back to magical faith in innate knowledge, "implicit control", etc., or OODA loops in which Orientation occurs quite shut off from all concrete data.

3. One thing I wanted to introduce before but was hesitant to do so: If successive and quite numerous iterations of an OODA loop (or continuous operation of OODA, if we are not talking of the naive looping model) consistently lead to quite similar orientations, then the results of Orient may seem to be the only relatively stable condition. I.e., multiple, multiple Observations, of disparate phenomena, and many various decisions, and numerous types of activities may all seem, collectively, to be flux in a person's life; but if a fairly consistent Orientation occurs (a person's orientation is not too greatly altered by any instance of these others), then "orientation" may begin to appear to be being, or a consistent being(-ness). E.g., no matter what I see or what I decide or what I do, I will still be male -- as long as I don't have an operation turning me into a female, whether physical alterations or, in the future, genetic alterations. Such a consideration is probably quite important for a consideration of the subject of this post.

BTW, I'm working on a revised OODA diagram to show a bit better what I mean, utilizing an OODA sub-process for the primary Orient phase. It's a little tough going at the moment after that Orient phase, w/ Decide in the primary OODA needing either a new word/concept or else needing to disappear from that primary loop altogether...Hmmm. I'll probably post a conditional version later today to move this debate into its own thread.

Curtis,

I'm looking forward to your OODA loop discussion of this topic!!

Dan, I'm working on it, should have the first post up today. It may turn into a short series, will probably be linked as an interlude or interpolation to this series.

I'm not finished with the subject of this series, but have been distracted by the other subject. (Unfortunately, I'm now far behind on the subject of 'Homosexuality and Globalization,' although I had Part Three in mind before our discussion here. That part has been pushed to Four, and Three is not yet well-considered but has been influenced by our discussion here.)