A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance
A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance
His colleagues noted that some species of crabs have asymmetrical appendages, one being larger than the other, but when one of the pair was lost, another grew back in mirror image to the other. To this they were disposed to ask, how did the crab gain symmetry?
Through the extended analysis, Bateson hypothesized that his colleagues had been asking the wrong question. They should rather have been asking, “how did the crab lose asymmetry?”
It was in fact, in the course of this very investigation into the biological laws of symmetry that William Bateson first coined the term “genetics.”
The rule by itself is not of particular relevance to our concerns for European ontology and nationalism. However, steps taken in ecological and cybernetic analysis and arrival at Bateson’s rule of morphology do have significant implications, suggesting hypotheses for semiotics of ecological (and ontological) correction - including of human ecology.
Central hypotheses to be advanced in that regard:
Symmetry represents older form, a primordial evolutionary response of morphological formation in relation to environment.
A measure of asymmetry in biological structures reflects a later, more refined and protracted interaction of semiotic system.
A balance of both asymmetry and symmetry is semiotic of systemic, human ecological health.
Largely neglected, if not misrepresented, has been the part asymmetry plays in distinguishing the semiotics of Europid morphological beauty in systemic, interactive health.
When we speak of asymmetry, it is not only left and right side within a phenotype, but also an off-center balancing of diversity between phenotypes.
Europids manifest a balanced equation (to a comparatively advanced degree) of symmetry and asymmetry in their authentic ontology, representing a particularly healthy system, with semiotics distinctive in capacity for ecological management.
That would correspond to regulative abilities compelled in sublimation through asymmetrical interaction to form symbiotic relations with social and natural environment.
Rupture of systemic bounds and hybrids with older forms apparently result in an atavistic loss of this ecological asymmetry.
Negroid symmetry represents primordial evolutionary form of adaptive (as opposed to regulative), individual girding, a high degree of individual imperviousness to social, environmental conditions as favored in initial evolutionary stages; probably also favored by female predilection (in non-symbiotic circumstance) for base strength of alpha males.
Negroids manifest a larger degree of symmetry comparatively to Europids.
East Asians probably manifest more symmetry also but as representing an opposite extreme, resulting from more of a collective bias – i.e. individual bounds giving way to group, collective selection.
Mulattoes (Europid/Negroid mix) manifest atavistic symmetry or rather, loss of Europid asymmetry.
The symmetry of Negroids and loss of asymmetry in Mulattoes can be semiotic of pejorative social, environmental, systemic interactive impact.
Europid and East Asian morphological trajectory, their sublimation, can undoubtedly hazard social and natural environments as well.
However, the sublimation and capacity for environmental regulation in Europids in particular, suggests a valuable kind of added flexibility to deliberately correct (regulate) such ecological consequences.
By contrast, the hyper-symmetry of Negroids corresponds with an imperviousness and lack of environmental adaptation and regulation; consequently to highly predictable social and environmental maladies. Mulattoes apparently manifest atavistic symmetry. Therefore, rather than moving rashly into the hypothesis that “Mulattoes represent a perfect balance” we will hypothesize rather that Mulattoes represent a destructive loss of Europid asymmetry and regulation thus, not a golden mean at all.
Nevertheless, there is an accounting for taste in over-valuing symmetry - a classical European basis to the over-valuation of symmetry: The “Immitative Theory” of beauty of classical Greece valued a morphology in which perfection was considered to be that which would reflect a specimen having come through a world free from accident - the perfect “form.”
In addition to providing understanding of the significance of symmetry/asymmetry, its semiotic meaning and implications for response, a fuller, compensatory theory of beauty should be promulgated - viz., a greater appreciation of Affective in addition to Immitative theory of beauty.
Affective and Immitative are two theories of beauty, with symmetry corresponding to the immitative, while asymmetry corresponds with the affective theory.
The Affective theory of beauty is a romantic theory which values little quirks and imperfections as exquisite, added flourishes which capture specifying excellence in systemic, environmental relation, adaptation.
Comparing these hypotheses to the steps that went into establishing Bateson’s rule, the steps that jump out as particularly relevant to European biological systems are these:
1. A-symmetry requires “information”, news of difference that makes a difference (“outformation”) to the system. Thus, it is an expression of homeostatic boundary maintenance.
Therefore the rupture of either of these parts of the systemic process, either rupture of the bounds or through the removal of the co-evolutionary part, will result in symmetrical forms.
Against Bateson’s (re-examined) rule, we are comparing that likely ramification to our hypothesis that a morphology of Europid phenotypes which display an equation of both symmetry and asymmetry is semiotic of its healthy, social and environmental system; and again, that over-symmetry which represents a loss of systemic, ecological health, can be an atavistic result from rupture of systemic delimitation; also from ensuing admixture.
The steps involved in Bateson’s rule:
Where I am going is to devalue symmetry as a strict ideal as that appears semiotic of our tragic loss, while a-symmetry looks like a sign of our difference and advance.
William Bateson’s rule indicates that the loss of cybernetic exclusion, that is the system’s inability to recognize a difference that makes a difference and turn back into systemic correction, balance and reconstruction, leads to the loss of a-symmetry.
A second factor going into the loss of asymmetry is the rupturing of the co-evolutionary part next to the once asymmetrical form (Europid beta males come to mind). It had compelled cybernetic news of difference that provided feedback to survey these systemic details.
“The technical term ‘information’ may be succinctly defined as any difference that makes a difference in some later event. This definition is fundamental for all analysis of cybernetic systems and organization. The definition links such analysis to the rest of science, where the causes of events are commonly not differences but forces, impacts and the like. The link is classically exemplified by the heat engine, where available energy (i.e. negative entropy) is a function of a difference between two temperatures. In this instance, ‘information’ and ‘negative entropy’ overlap.
a) Information may be embodied in gradients (perhaps biochemical). In this coding, information can be diffused from neighboring tissues and provide the first determinants of …..asymmetry in the developing appendage. It is suggested that information coded in this way is only briefly available, and that once the asymmetry of the limb is established, the information continues to exist but transformed into morphology.
b) the coded information is static..it can be shared at the periphery but cannot inhibit branching, thus if extended it will necessarily be inverted.
In any given case of reduplication, it will be necessary to decide what particular piece of information was lost, and the argument given so far should make the decision easy. A natural first guess would be that the developing appendage needs three kinds of information to enable it to achieve asymmetry: proximo-distal information; dorso-ventral information; and antero-posterior information. The simplest hypothesis suggests that these might be separately received and therefore that one of these sorts of information will be lost or absent in any given case of reduplication.”
(i.e. redundancy of these systemic ends will be necessary to create asymmetry)
“It should then be easy to reclassify cases of reduplication according to which piece of orienting information is missing. There should be at most three such types of reduplication, and these should be clearly distinct.”
Rather like healthy water will have algae, bugs and slimy things slithering around..
Asymmetry bespeaks an organicism sufficiently affable with and delimiting of environmental systems, including its own.
Systemic homeostasis is necessary to maintain this evolutionary advance.
With the agreement of border security ruptured (as per Bowery’s definition of civilization’s contract, wherein males forgo individual battle over females in exchange for collective border control), naturally, asymmetry would no longer have a place from which to receive stable feedback from within the system.
That the Jewish collective has a significant part in rupturing Europid civilizations’ contract of border security, particularly as it acts upon European objectivity, compassion and empathy, is well established. Consequently, Negroid individual bio-power, long pre-evolved to Europids, acts opportunistically, particularly as imposed by the Jewish collective; Asians continue to act collectively; while Europid males are prohibited from acting in accordance with what might otherwise be their natural, technological (asymmetrical) means of individual defense of their vulnerable system and co-evolutionaries.
It would be more important than ever at this point to promulgate asymmetry as a semiotic factor of systemic relation, health and coordination.
“A re-examination of Bateson’s rule’ may seem to break new ground….it extends the notion of informational control to include the field of morphogenesis and, by discussing what happens in the absence of needed information, brings out the importance of the context into which information is received.”
Remember an aspect of Bateson’s rule here, that some redundancy of reinforcement seems to be necessary in the reconstruction of asymmetry.
With that, a case is set forth for the necessity to promote beauty beyond symmetry. In fact, too much symmetry may naturally instill a feeling corresponding to sterility, inorganicism, a lack of subtlety and more, in addition to reinforcing whatever biological hegemony that African symmetry may have. Among other significant reasons to amend the Immitative theory of beauty is that some European females may not be seen or see themselves as valuable enough of their form to preserve their kind of beauty as they are dis-confirmed by social norms of beauty and ugliness.
This is likely to connect to a verifiable phenomenon wherein qualitatively differentiated European females tend to get sucked into a kind of black hole of miscegenation.
As I have previously hypothesized, and line with Neil’s terminology of the normalization of what is abnormal and unreal, this probably has much to do with the re-emergence and increased one-up position of puerile females in mate selection in the disorder of modernity; that goes along with the predilections of their perspective re-emerging with increased significance as they are pandered-to from all directions, having all too much recourse, including from previously prohibited outsiders. They become overly articulate and confident within modernity’s disorder, classificatory borders having been ruptured by “civil rights”, “anti-racism” etc. and with little to rely on in systemic relation, they seek to maintain the power of this position more on the basis of episodic instantiation (which favors assertion of the base symmetry of Negroids) by disallowing re-ordering.
In systemic protection, it is crucial to confirm a more articulate and comprehensive theory and value of beauty.
With nature abhorring a void, I have cited what I believe to be an overly limited “All-American” (also known as plain American, though really, there is nothing wrong with this type, it is only problematic when it is looked upon as an exclusive kind of beauty) aesthetic which has not sufficiently valued the beauty of some continental Europid types, particularly for their would-be buffering functions. Again, it seems American Europids may have had a false impression and almost phobic idea that morphological difference from the western Africans brought there by slavery guarantees a genetic distance from Africans; but it does not necessarily, as Europids have apparently evolved from Eastern Africans. The All-American kind of phobia may have the result of creating an overly intriguing difference in morphology, wherein certain features of Negroids may be held to be uniquely alluring but are in fact already assimilated in Europid types, only ignored or rather paranoically disallowed (consider the big nose, or extended chin).
It is important to promulgate a more articulate, comprehensive theory and value of beauty.
On the other hand,
This should also correspond with a platform which provides an ongoing critique of aesthetics, forms and functions likely to be over-valued from a female perspective.
How many times have you heard a puerile female describe the qualities that she looks for in a partner and thought to yourself…hmm, she has just described n…gger males in all their revoltingness?
This hyper-symmetry among Negroids apparently represents an imperviousness and lack of environmental adaptation and regulation which corresponds to a range of social environmental maladies, as previously noted: minimal sublimation, hyper-assertiveness, aggression, presumptuousness, more sex partners, younger, more offspring with low investment parenting, single parent families, poverty, overpopulation, disease, violence, over-grazing and destruction of resources. The confidence which puerile females tend to admire so much is in negative corollary to empathy and conscience.
That is to say, the “natural” predilections of young females are not exactly law-like indicators of the good to which we should merely adjust.
The added valuation of asymmetry of European ontology should correspond to two ontological definitions proffered by Bowery: culture as artificial selection and the contract of civilization - as he notes, agreement of civilization has been breached. Europid males, naturally having a capacity for protracted system of consummation, had tacitly agreed to not fight over females in return for borders contractually, collectively defended against interlopers. Of course, the contract for the borders has not been upheld and interlopers are opportunistically seizing upon our more circumspect and asymmetrical system.
Before anybody charges me with taking my eye off of a Jewish role in this, when one asks why Negroids are being foisted upon Europids against their wishes, the Jewish influence invariably becomes evident (as does objectivist and international capitalist interests). However, that is not what is being examining here. Rather under consideration is the understanding of what a normal, healthy, Europid morphological range and system would look like in contribution to the ontology project.
There is nothing so naked (shocking) as a naked White woman….because she is not an individually symmetrical brunt against the social and natural environment, but rather a most subtle, asymmetrical relationship.
Here is a study that confirms some of my suspicions about the implicit value of asymmetry as a sign of health
All quoted information is from Gregory Bateson, Steps to An Ecology of Mind, 1972, “Re-Examination of Bateson’s Rule” pages 384-403
Post a comment: