Ancient channels for the flow of DNA encoded information.

• Firstly a word about gender: As stated, abilities of mind mediate the relatedness between those aspects of physical reality constituting the body and the rest of physical reality, and is the result of the history of relatedness of the informational content of reality both with itself, and with the rest of reality, also known as evolution.

Because of this, mind’s perceptions and utilization of relatedness is connected to it’s history of relatedness.

Also, perceptions regarding an event of relatedness will differ for the mind aspects of reality participating in them to the extent that one perceives an action of one’s “self” in response to some environmental fluctuation, while the other experiences the same event as environmental fluctuation, stimulating response of self.

It should also be stated that although “categorizations” are useful as part of an attempt to describe the functioning of reality, the extent to which it is impossible to find an absolute line of separation between “classes” of reality is directly correlated with the extent to which “categorizations” are an inaccurate description of reality.

All of this is true of relatedness between all categorizations of reality, including the “male” and “female”. In regards to the human aspect of reality, this represents diversity of understanding regarding the relatedness of reality.

This is only one diversity amongst a diversity of diverse understandings. In evolutionary terms greater diversity represents greater potential.

• Even though the strategies of each “self” – or pattern of relationship between aspects of reality – are aimed at an idealized goal of maintaining the self as an aspect of reality, it nonetheless remains impermanent.

Reproduction is the only compromise possible to give the “self” any semblance of continuance beyond it’s inevitable old age and death.

Even then, it is not any “self” that survives or evolves, (since it dies) but only what we really are which is the fully integrated functioning of this one reality expressed through this organism / environment adaptation equivalence.

Asexual reproduction has relatively limited means for relating back with, and therefor responding to, the environmental fluctuation represented by the informational content of reality.

Sexual reproduction, while limited to that aspect of the informational fluctuation represented by one’s own species, has greater means for responding since “different” examples of informationally organized reality are able to exchange beneficial strategies for relating to reality between them.

This represents a means of dealing with the informational aspect of environmental fluctuation by embodying it.

This in turn puts the species in a better position to relate with non species environmental fluctuations of all types.

It is a specific form of the generalized adaptive strategy in other words.

In the realm of strategy, the development of emergent beneficial methods for relating between organism and reality, is equalled in importance by the ability to respond to the environmental fluctuation represented by emergent beneficial methods.

One such response strategy is the ability to align with emergent strategy via sexual reproduction. To the extent that competing emergent strategies are unavailable or relatively uneconomic, this alignment strategy is one which makes sense as effective adaptive response.

They are then, two very fundamental aspects of strategy, relating together in a highly intertwined manner:

“Adaptive pressure” provided by environmental fluctuation produces successful emergent adaptive response, which in turn represents further environmental fluctuation to “other” expressions of information. This in turn provides the adaptive pressure to drive further emergent response, including strategies of alignment with the original emergent abilities through sexual reproduction.

This strategy of alignment in it’s turn represents the occurrence of a preferential “selection” force comparable to the “selection” aspect of “natural selection”. This in turn represents yet more environmental fluctuation driving yet more emergent response.

Pressures are therefor transmitted through reality as a chain of action reaction just like the accommodating relatedness between any other aspects within reality.

These two classes of strategy form the basis for gender, and are therefor more fundamental than gender, but have the same yin yang “match made in heaven” kind of quality.

The interaction of these classes of strategy lead to, and are mirrored in, the “male” and “female” categories of strategy, which occur as two sub strategies within the wider sexual selection category.

The asymmetric division of species into “male” and “female” represents specialization into the roles of producing emergent strategy / genetic variation, and alignment with such variation. Taken together they represent the sexual selection strategy.

The male contribution to the reproductive needs of the species can be fully met by a small subset of this category of the population. This enables the expression of a high risk – benefit strategy on the part of the male aspect of the species while the species as a whole need only be exposed, differentially speaking, to the “benefit” part of the equation.

In other words, the range of possible “species safe” strategic response to reality on the part of the male is increased, part of which is the range of genetic expression.

This in turn increases the range of possible “selections” available to the sexual selection strategy.

The “Female” aspect of the species has relatively low risk of reproductive failure due to sexual “de-selection”, however her high investment in her offspring, combined with the high risk – benefit profile of the “male” aspect, effectively transmits these risk – benefit potentials into adaptive pressure on the female.

This amplifies the selection pressures driving the alignment component of strategy, and manifests as the strategic response of “choosiness” on the part of the female.

As stated, this choosiness equates to a kind of “selectiveness tendency” comparable to the “selection” aspect of “natural” selection.

This new form of selection in turn amplifies the risk of reproductive failure, along with the benefits of success from the point of view of the male, thereby further “incentivizing” varied expression.

The sexual selection strategy therefor has a circular quality to it.

As a result, the species as a whole is able to produce variety, then preferentially preserve within it’s DNA the “beneficial” component of this variety (at least in so far as female selections are capable of doing so).

A confluence presumably occurs between the most successful emergent and alignment strategies, presumably resulting in “cross pollination”.

The emergent and alignment strategies of a given species should in that case be closely related in character. For example, the emergence of “sophisticated” and “intelligent” strategy should coincide with “sophisticated” and “intelligent” sexual selection strategy.

Sexual reproduction and selection is very costly in terms of resources, and also leads to an entirely new form of “intra-species ecosystem”, leading in turn to sub strategies aimed at circumventing the primary strategies.

For example rape forces the sharing of informational content which the “alignment” strategy may have otherwise “de-selected”, while the female exerts strategies to try to prevent a successful male from spreading the informational content he represents any further.

The primary strategies are however the adaptive drivers of the sexual reproduction and selection strategies, while these secondary “self” ish strategies essentially parasitize upon this:

The facility that sexual reproduction and selection provide to both respond to and preemptively drive the fluctuations of the wider informational content of reality is an over riding adaptive pressure which must be very difficult for any cost to outweigh.

2013 Peter Sillifant