Una ética-pragmática de la Responsabilidad Moral en el ámbito sexual enfocada en las minorías sexuales con una base Científico-Matemática[EN, IDIOMA-INGLÉS].

Una ética-pragmática de la Responsabilidad Moral en el ámbito sexual enfocada en las minorías sexuales con una base Científico-Matemática.

Notes For A Pragmatical Neoliberal-Ethics and Queers´s Moral of the Sexual Minorities: The religious problem of any class of sin´s concepts in the queers logic´s.

I) Introduction

1) I will explain my ethical-cognitive experience about my buddhist experience regarding my daily practice, moral and ethics behaviors. The idea is to get some contrast with the Christian paradigm and trying to see a new integrative perspective to resolving the question that I exposed in order to answering the question for reality and the question for responsibility of our acts in the democratic context to finally getting an democratic approach about What could be a Neoliberal-Ethics of the Queer Phenomena and mainly thinking about if the Queer phenomena have moral legitimacy to arguing need of Naturalized Queer Reality suscribing the Christian Morality´s Logics – and in that case there would be such thing like “Queer sin´s concept”, this is the only way to thinking a Queer sin´s concept, anyway- or in other case, discover if the Queer´s logics could be a better chance with Buddisth´s Logic, but in this case philosophically is not possible thinking such thing like “Queer sin´s concept”.

2) If it this would be the panoramic we would obligated to declare that Queer is not a democratic logic or democratic thinking because it would become unethical from Christian perspective due the lack of sin´s concept, that is,sin´s concept would be the Closure Concept in terms of modern system theory according the Niklas Luhmann thinking, specially the chapter called “European Rationality” of his book “Observations on Modernity”. Then, if there are not sin´s concept in Queer´s Logic the basis to developmenting critical moral observations ,that is democratic observations to this important point, I propose describe non-normatively this Queer´s paradox from a buddisth perspective to explaining the Luhmann´s paraphrasis of the Laws of Form of Spencer Brown,therefore we are avoiding the risk of objectivify an hypothetic relationship between the Re-entry Mark(Queer´s concept) and the Closure Concept(Queer sin´s concept) implying this, the logical necessity of objectivity recursively and therefore implying the logical necessity of an “imaginary mathematical” plane specially built for this “imaginary/autorithative normative purpose”.

3) My hypothesis is that Queer sin´s concept would be the Re-entry Mark of the Queer system´s logic and would the invisibilizing the fundamental moral responsibility behavior about the own sexual responsibility, to avoid Queers´s paradox regarding sexual diversity and regarding the own political foundational of the movement, Luhmann would be say that is perfectly right because Re-entry Mark can having blind points and this is the ontological nature of drawing a distinction like the Re-entry Mark.

4) At the same time sin´s concept to explain the hipotetically Queer´s ethics from this self-referential perspective and regarding Buddhist´ethical behaviors- infringing the existential import fallacy- considering that the concept of sin doesn´t exist to the Buddhist´s Logic, and Buddhist it is pragmatically related with the Morality of Dharma´s Law, that is pious in itself behavior and pious itself behavior regarding others and in this sense, finally therefore, Buddisth´s teachings also are building the logic of virtue, in Christian terms, in the same exactly way that Christians relate to the Jesus-Christ´s teachings.

5) Finally thinking in capitalist-responsible terms, we could observing the social impact of this distinctions over some basically concepts of Economy, considering the paradigm shift regarding the social actors involved in the new neoliberal-market politics.

II) Searching for a moral approach to responsibility of our acts in the space-time of the existence.

Moral intentions have the potential of building our actions in physical terms. Science recognize the fact that our throughts have a great implicance in our reality. The water experiments of japanase scientist Masaru Emoto And “The Consciusness of Water Experiment” are proof of this affirmation.

I don’t believe, anyway ,if that breaking the Hume´s law in a Democratic Society would be a right way to think the ethical or moral issues, that is, getting moral values from the nature facts- The Natural-Law- because would be, paradoxically, a non-benefit thinking to minorities, in general terms- not only sexual minorities-due the apodictical character of that reasons. We calling that, arguing with a non-objective reason. Yet, intuitive orientations or common sense are constitutive in.

Further antirealism ethics, on the other side, are not a good place to get a positive structure of law, in normative terms, because according to my vision, antirealism ethics engage perfectly with a Traditional Society that are needing just an update to get the formal accomplish of its legal rules because the moral phenome is an apriori reason, precisely. That is the phenomenological truth, asides the liberal discourse, asides of any discourse. You could say, in this context, ok from Laws of Form by Spencer Brown, altruism doesn´t exist but that reason is not useful to real political decisions. Mathematically, war would be inminent, and this is politically an absurd.

Then, our ethical paradigm need the basically understanding regarding the question: How we should understanding the objective nature of reality according with conventional or cultural paradigm of sexuality in a democratic society, that we would call reality-1 and at the same time, How we should thinking according objective reasons that respect the currently science, that we call reality-2, and still thinking in objective terms to respect the objective democratic reasons?

Well, my democratic answer in this sense, is the social respect to the religious thinking could be the piece that resolving that paradox. I think this is the way to reasoning this issues because the Law Natural´s believers don’t like queers´s discourse, and second, the Progress of the Science could implicates a panoramic confussion, because after all science can be an object of many critical, specially the Scientific critics,for example the Karl Popper´s argument regarding the validation or reality of the scientific´s theories, The Francisco Varela criticism, the Humberto Maturana criticism, etc.

III) Pragmatical Neoliberal-Ethics and Queers´s Moral of the Sexual Minorities From the Christian Ontology.

1) The Christian Ontology. 

Queer are a cultural construction about sexuality. In that process sociological relations could be turn confuse acquiring a great empty moral space, because the constructive or constructivist act- in linguistic terms- doesn´t have a natural place in preverbal phenomenology of humans actions, this is, the embodied mind or those actions that we are thinking like emotional values that in a second instance they will show us like genuine moral values.

From a Christian perspective, reality have an ontology, that is, elements or real objects that we understanding and getting an aprehensive notion due our sensible senses and in general terms, the reality that God give us through the Natural Law.

1.1) The Temporal Nature Of The Sin´s Concept From a Christian Perspective.

The sin´s concept essence is about doing a forbidden action in the personal non-penalty law sphere- behaviors that breaking the Natural Law- and don’t getting the moral responsibility in the future because if we can do recognize the moral responsibility in the present moment can´t be a sin because we are focusing the consciousness in we al doing, paradoxically. Viewing from this virtually reflexive future idea, the ontological present of consciousness- asides biological-cognitive problems- should we allowing the present like an action of the past, then the sin´s concept will be always acquiring the shape of a future action because is this future moment when we can thinking about that past, our relative present time.

Anyway, all these acts past, present and future, have a moral intention. If you breaking the law doing the wrong thing you are breaking the Natural Law in terms of intention, and this is this would be consider the Christian sin´s concept but What about the physical act? Well the physical or material act can´t be erase or delete from the space-time existence, but we can learn from the past and avoiding think breaking the Natural Law and avoiding do the physical wrong behavior in the future.

From a Critical Queer´s perspective, we couldn´t say that there are something like “queer sin´s concept”, only in the case queer behaviors occurring under the understanding of Queer Natural Law? But, this is impossible because Queer is a social construction. Then, the sin´s concept can´t be a concept that queer person could be arguing or maybe if the queer person would be in the Christian side, but in this last case we are not seeing a queer person, because queer can´t be accomplishing with Natural Law due of sexual performance. In any case, Queers can be converted to the Christian side, and finally all his/her sins should be washed in.

Thomas Aquinas would be agree with all this affirmations because the virtue is the way to avoid falling in sin or wrong behavior, but at the same time is necessary getting consciousness about our thinking and our behavior to come back to the right track, the virtue track. Main point, from Aquina´s perspective the sin´s concept is a future´s phenomena. Otherwise, virtue´s way doesn’t sense.

IV) Pragmatical Neoliberal-Ethics and Queers´s Moral of the Sexual Minorities From the Buddisth Ontology.

1) The Buddisth Ontology

There are many realitys like persons existing in the world. A constructive or constructivist vision of the reality, you are free and all became free because reality can be apprehensive trought the sensible senses and at the same time you can choose don’t feel anything, a negationism of the senses.

Further, the buddisth practice could be considered like the impletation of the Buda´s teachings in the daily life. But this seems not enough to get an ethical approach because, like a first criticism, there are many Buddisth´s Traditions and like a second criticism, there are not such thing like the moral code of Buda instead there are many texts from many Buddisth Monks that are interpreting his/her experience practicing the Buda´s principles trought the years, and that is the nature of different Buddsith Traditions, but all these traditions have in mind or are philosophically stablished over the basis of the Four Nobel Truth´s predicated by the historically Buda.

2) The temporal nature of the sin concept from a Buddisth perspective.

About the existence of sin´s concept.

From a Buddisth perspective don´t exists the sin ´s concept. Yet, buddisth recognize the Dharmic Law realization like the parameter of the right actions. Buddisth is centered in the right actions and never in the wrong actions, that is, those actions against Dharma´s logics.

About my meditative experience.

When you are practicing the buddisth´s meditations, day by day, you have the perception that there are a difference between do it and not. So, main differences from my point of view are basically regarding classic meditation and the listening sacred chants experience- Sitatapatra Chants, Mahakala White Chants- is the intellectual realization. Sitting on a chair reciting a mantra or just like zen, thinking in the plenty of empty- it would be great if you feeling under control of all your emotions, benefits and negatives troughts but it can be inefficient to getting out of negative states of mind or avoiding feel emotional pain. In this last case- and according to the Heart Sutra´s- a buddisth text- you will find emotional release when you are listening the Sacred Buddisth Chants.

Generally, I would say if you are experimenting that peace after listening the chants, you should to know that you would have desire to come back to that experience. It´s a sort of spiritual-food, you can remind the conecction and development certain “pragmatic faith”. It´s like to go the entertainment park, you feeling like your mind is off and your heart is free.

About my sin´s buddisth experience.

Well, my sin´s buddisth experience is the desire to getting coneccted in meditation all the time trought the day. The feeling of loosing the meditative boost, in this sense, I could describe like the "Buddisth sin´s concept" and the desire of getting spiritual connection after that disconecction because during the meditation, I´m in, without desire and when I´m totally coneccted, desire is off, in this same way.

V) Queer´s phenonema and the Economic System, impacting the Moral Values of Society.

Sociological queers´s logic have a consumer perspective seeing from the economic side. The old system focus in work producer, the new system is a consumer´s system, the queer is the new consumer. That includes the feminist´s logics, of course. Queers and feminist are different arist from the same antinormative sexual logic according Volker Woltersdorff . I think, in this sense, that enterprises have a great responsibility regarding the messages that are spreading because finding moral value in the Queer´s logic seems to be a hard work. Reference,“New frontiers of pink capitalism: Or why sandwiches won’t lead to queer liberation”. In ultimate terms, is a moral responsibility to the capitalist regarding to moral statu quo of the society.

Kind regards,

conservative-feminism team