IN THE NAME OF
THE WHY

In the name of the Why? that human asks to his generation,

the father's name gives an answer,

for it is the name of the Y

©WTHEAUX961107150633

PRESENTATION - TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dear Friend,

I can finally anwser your last post, about genetics. After despairing over computer difficulties I could recollect my ideas and my files.

This page will make more precise my ideas about a certain dimension of genetics. It will be constructed as follows:

---- The genetical question
as a political agenda

-- my political proposition

-- your ontological notation

-- my precision

---- The theorical
deciphering

-- an initial message that I posted in NewsGroup -- and his well indicative answer

-- your opinion

-- my explaination/writing following your answer - and my references to :

-- -- -- -- -- a biographical recollection of my approach

-- -- -- -- -- a book review that I wrote in Mentalities - in French at first.

-- -- -- -- -- a recent abstract from Archeologia.

---- I have also added
a  article
-- which exposes my general ( in Mentalities) conception of the
 Y-naming
(warning: you may download a zip IN ENGLISH - IN FRENCH)

---- and I have finally attempted to summarize my position

-- I used the form of a fiction and a short dialogue to describe the idea that more than the sexual gender is concealed in the Y's phenomenology. Actually, it opens - like a key hidden in its own keyhole<2-link>- the foundation core of naming, of the Logos, at a certain point of evolution in consciousness. The Y-Gene (the Why-Gene if not if-Gene) is the Name in Nature <3-link>. Since we have Genetics, Artificial Intelligence, Cybernetics etc... it is worth to notice.

I wish you the best,

Sincerely,

William

A POLITICAL ATTITUDE

To my genetician friend :

You wrote me a question <Q-link> about my ideas regarding genetics. It is one of my major topics of interest.

Actually, I am busy setting an organization - probably a corporation. Its first purpose is to RECOVER AND APPLY THE TRADITIONAL and UPDATED ART OF MEMORY.

One can track this tradition from Ancient Greece, Rome, Middle-Ages etc... up to the actual stage of Psychoanalysis. It is a well defined activity and model - it answers your question, for I integrate the actual genetic engineering in the breadth of this Traditional Art (genetics is very close to memory, isn't it?)

For instance, the corporation will include a chapter to guaranty THE RIGHT FOR THE CHILDREN TO KNOW AND CHECK THE GENETICAL CODE OF THEIR PARENTS.

Of course this clause relates to several other prospects

ONTOLOGY OF NEUROSIS

My friend answered :

You asked me: "genetics is very close to memory, isn't it?" My answer is "No, I don't think so." Let me give some explanation. In the first place, most contemporary views of the the role of DNA in human biology is the result of reductionistic thinking which in a sense removes the genes from the totality of the human being and the human being's spiritual relationship with the cosmos and the spiritual hierarchies. True memory is not "stored" in the brain, nor is it a consequence of the DNA--except in the INDIRECT sense that the DNA plays a role in laying down the physical brain. But the physical brain is really only like a mirror that reflects the thoughts from the spirit-thought-world. The real foundation for what each of us thinks is in fact the SAME thought-world if we access it with moral intuition. Thus, in this way the "physical" models for memory, which are based on the activity of chemicals like RNA, DNA and proteing is only one side of the picture (i.e., a reduced version that does not address where memories are actually "stored"). What concerns me about people wanting to have access to their parents' DNA is that this becomes an extremely mechanistic and reductionistic form of DNA-thinking that will tend to cause people to look at their ancestors as the source of their neuroses (to speak in terms of Freud). Actually, in the context of reincarnation, when we look at the DNA of our ancestors, we eventually come to where we see OUR OWN DNA. Again, we come around to the realization that our neuroses are really our own and our's alone. Consequently, I don't see any pressing reason why children should have to know the DNA sequences of their parents, unless perhaps if they want to know if someone is or is not one of the parents. Give me some reasons why you think it is so important that children be guaranteed access to their parents gene sequences.

ANSWER IN THE QUESTION

This is the answer to the above question :

Well, you've said it. The first reason I see, for guarantying the right for the children to know the DNA sequences of their parents is "to know if someone is or is not one of the parents." This is my actual point, on my step by step process. I can't detail all the labyri...

WHY OR NOT

Posted in NewsGroups about questions that people ask regarding the change of the name of their children (especially the change of the father-name):

<P-link>

Why do we have a name, to change?.. ?

Hello,

I don't know the law on changing a child name - but I am a psychiatrist and biologist and I have study the problem. I read on dads-rights newsgroup this question regarding either their sons or daughters. A scientific point of view may be interesting.

We must look back, just a few years ago. A genetical law has been discovered, apparently so simple that one rapidly made it a banality. It was around 1950 that the law of transmission of the chromoses X & Y has been stated and rapidly spread in the public & common knowledge. It is recent (as basically all that we know about chromosomes is not older that the 20th century).

This law is very well known - I shall not describe it. We all know: ' XX for girls, XY for boys '.Interesting enough, a deduction has not been very much emphazised since. So I'll try to make it clear with my rough English:

It is even more easy to see it if you draw on a paper, how 'X' chromosomes and 'Y' are transmitted along the generations. It is striking to see that, as a women transmits indistincly one of her 'X', she rapidly may not be sure after three generations if this chromosome is still transmitted to her descendants. After ten generations, there is a very very little probablilty that her grand-grand-....-grand-child continues to carry the specific genes of this X. No need to say after 100 generations.

Actualy this process of dissolution in the whole 'genetic pool' is very general and applies to the entire stock of genes and chromosomes except.... a singular case:

Let's look at the transmission of Y. If a man has a son, there is hundred per cent probability that his heir will carry the same Y. And if thus son has a son, the probability stay the same. And so on... It is very simple and striking to see that a male lineage, whatever ten or hundred generations, will carry hundred per cent probability the same genetic component regarding this Y chromosomical suite/site.

It is most remarkable.

It is the only case amongst chromosomes where such a continuation law exists. Only the Y carries this strict, absolute, law of transmission. It is unique, it applies only to males, and it is ideally represented by the transmission of the name of the father. Nothing but repression can deny this Patriarchy's accuracy.

It is a remarkable performance where culture meets nature.

It is also most remarkable that this unique fact has not been emphasized since it has been discovered. (instead of that, we have 'generation-X' and a haughty contempt from legislation on the family name).

But if scientists, and lay people, would say: "Oh! Wait a minute... this biological particularity matches remarkably the traditional rule of the transmission of the father's name (patronimy) which has been so common in our civilization " - perhaps the legislation would have proof some enlighted insight, for once.

------------

I don't know if this notice interests you. There is not much more to say if I have not make already clear that we must seriously consider that the male chromosome natural law of 'perduction' points at the as one of the major civilization features.

As said above, I've been working quite extensively on this matter - lectured in NZ and NY etc... (some can be found in the bibliography (see ContactCenter in my web site - see below)

I have also noticed that some fathers ask about their daughter's name. I have myself a daughter and have considered the problem. The transmission of the father's name to a daughter does not respond to genetics (as stated above) - yet it regards the general issue of updating and setting the contemporary moral right of any human being to access one's parent genetic data, for then, the mysterious meaning of the second name will become much clearer to look at.

But popular access to genetic data may be too tough.

May be it is better to ignore...

Regarding myself and my descendants, usually, I don't take ignorancy for very beneficial,

Z.Kelper, 960906 18:05

(to an answer to this post)

AN ANSWER MAY BE IN THE QUESTION

Somebody answered to my post <P-link>:

< Mr. Kelper, This would explain why so many cultures are patrileaner

< rather than matrilinear,

TRANSLOCATION ANSWERS WHY

(from my Friend following the above NewsGroup post)

Dear William,

Yes, of course, you are quite correct about the role of the Y being conserved in the generations of males. However, you also must consider the fact that even this conservation is not absolute. The recombination events that eventually occur between the X and the Y will tend to "dilute" out the original sequence of the Y chromosome <D-link>. The Y has quite a high degree of homology with a part of the X and it is this homology that will enhance crossing over. Also rare translocation events <T-link> will contribute to the distribution of the Y into all of the other chromosomes. You might be interested in molecular biology research about the nature of XX males and XY females (I did NOT make a mistake in writing these this way!) who are a consequence of some of the rare cross-over events. For more information on the Y and X homologies and sex-determination, why don't you try the National Center for Biotechnology Information at:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

When you get to this site, look for the on line Mendelian inheritance search engine. Search for key words like: Y, X, chromosome, homology, and gene (use this all in one search). You can also search for sex-determination.

Warm thoughts,

John

P.S. I have been following the work on "the gene" for sexual preference of Dean Hamer. His work is extremely controlversial and involves describing regions of the Y chromosome that determine homosexuality in men <H-link> -- although I think there is much that needs to be done to "prove" this. Let me know if this is of interest. He wrote a book called "The Genetics of Desire" which summarizes a lot of his research (which others, by the way, have NOT been able to reproduce).

THE NAMING AND ITS REPRESSION

Dear friend,

Let me first link < R-link> an excerpt of a memory that I wrote for a friend who sent me the Archeologia Summary <A-link>. It indicates the practical foundation of my current interpretation regarding the Y naming.

You say:

The recombination events that eventually occur between the X and the Y will tend to "dilute" out the original sequence of the Y chromosome <D-link>.

But this does only occurs regarding the homologue parts I guess. The interest of the XX-XY observation is that there is a specific dissymetry - and a piece (tenant or title-order - tenant in French) which never 'crosses-over' within a pair.

Yet there may be some kind of translocation within a filiation - which is very exciting but rare; as exceptions which confirm a rule <T-link>.

This production of an order dimension has been signified by the Patronymic - it is a matter of fact which is intriguing by its ekmension - may I say, to design the absent object which calls for the Freudian inquiry (known for names that conciousness does not mention)

I have expressed and detailed this sound silence in the critic of Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. This book is quite renowned - I beleive - for stating the scientific belief of the obstinate coil called Gene.

One of the gaudiest selfish is obviously the Y piece which breaks from male to male. And the most ekcentric - may I say  feat of Dawkins' report is its (quasi) total lack of  mention of the bold typical selfish Y (beside a remakable conception (meme) of its equivalent 'Seeming' (semblant) in the Psychoanalytical field).

Why didn't he mention the Y - except for some notes which keep silent about Y's ideal representativity of selfishness? This avoidance is so intriguing that it is weird, like in other studies referred by Dawkins, as for instance The Redundant Male (by Jeremy Cherfas & John Gribbin) - or in another study specialized in genetics of Male as for instance the Chromosome Y (written by an influent French political woman who advises soft 'homosexual relation' between father and son). This silence looks like a plot. Does it maintains, or is it by itself, a taboo?

How come that the Y gene, which is the best example of genetic persistence, is not emphasized in thoses studies about the genetic persistence? Facing this fact causes an intellectual trauma - and it is why the person who dares to face it, has a reputation for saying non-sense.

It looks like a black-hole - where the sense is hurled into silence...

Until a key makes it key-hole  <2-link>- I shall try therefore to summarize in a few lines what is the simple truth that we must conclude with.

DAWN OF AN EXPLAINATION <R-link>

(to another friend)

Hence, there is the story that I can say.

Fifteen year ago, after my arrival, my installation, and at the beginning of my Psychoanalysis in Lyon/France, I presented to my new colleagues, a special part of my theorization. It was the beginning ot their ostracism of me from the Lacanian group of Psychoanalysts in this city - interesting enough it was on the same Name-of-the-Father topic that Lacan was rejected from the scientific community of his time (from that moment Lacan refused say the thing about the patronymic, so we don't know if he was thinking of the Y; but we know that his devoted disciple imitated him, they could not think anaything about the Y - it was really funny, but they hated me badly).

You can imagine how your post interests me for this thesis, that I presented in Lyon, was quite strictly that which is said in the excerpt from Archelogia (see 98/10/31, an amusing addition for an example of the Father's Name Metaphor  ).

I considered that the discovery of the Y chromosome was essential to be studied<2-link>, regarding its relation with the ''Name-of-the-Father'' theorized by Lacan - which was following Freud's hypothesis about the "Murder-of-the-Father" - which introduced one of the most important Psychoanalytical discoveries regarding the structure of human knowledge.

After having listened my presentation, my colleagues, sent a delegation to ask genetician scholars what they thought of my idea. When they came back in our psychoanalytical circle, they reported that those geneticians said that it was nonsense.

I could not know how they had presented my theory - but anyhow, this was the initial break through for my rejection from the Lacanian psychoanalytical community of Lyon.

Thirteen years later, we see that scientists nowadays commonly study<2-link> the Y chromosome in relation to its ''perduction'' (passed only from father to son). Thank you very much, my dear friend, for being the bearer of this information. It is a resounding confirmation of my thesis.

It will help me greatly in my continuing effort to let see the cultural worth and essential place in Western consciousness of the patronymical rule.

THE WHY NOT

To French Original version

(Some Hyper Realistic Litterature)

With THE REDUNDANT MALE (Jeremy Cherfas & John Gribbin<2-link>), I could examine three books which explore the same topic that the article about Male Spirit in Mentality. The two other books are THE SELFISH GENE (by Richard Dawkins) and Y CHROMOSOME (by Elisabeth Badinter).

They are three extraordinary books for they don't mention the most flagrant thing - that is the repressed one; and they are even more extraordinary because this obvious missing data is just about what they are looking for.

They are talking about Genetics - that is the fact that in a living cell, the function of a code participates to its permanency within a reproduction process and a resistancy within a environment constantly changing.

Cherfas and Gribbin think that from the moment when technology enables human to get control over its environment, the sexual mean was becoming redundant, and consequently the male, superfluous.

Later, Dawkins stressed the information about genes and chromosomes - and depicted them as 'selfish-machines' only looking for their own permanency. What is comical in these books is that the most representative chromosome of this quality is the male gene, Y, which is the only one to maintain at 100% rate his presence in a living generation thread. None of them mentions this exemplary Y which flaunts within the phenomenon that they study.

Evidently this 100% transmitted gene looses its advantage when in a context of the entire genome control and access - and what it 'evidence' is not worth a book! Yet the interest of a demonstration which deprives itself of its proof, lodge in its warning. For instance, Badinter's book is exclusively dedicated to the Y chromosome, and at the male psychology. This book displays likewise the silence about the permanence aspect of its 'selfish' gene within a lineage. Such a crass omission of the fact provokes truth. Those texts warn and call for the violence in the release of the repression, which equals their concealing - which means the deepest machoist reaction of Patriarchy.

This is probably their goal, if there is a pleasure in writing. But in reading them, one can avoid the fury they want to make proof - let's conclude that they are propaganda.

LIT GREC D'ELISABETH

To translated English version

(pour mes amis Français au pied du lit de la femme du Ministre de la Justice)

Avec The Redundant Male (Jeremy Cherfas & John Gribbin), j'ai finalement pu passer en revue trois livres qui documentent l'essai du Mentalities qui concerne la spiritualité masculine. Les deux autres livres sont: The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins) et Chromosome 'Y' (Elisabeth Badinter).

Ces trois ouvrages sont extraordinaires parce qu'ils ne parlent pas de la chose la plus ordinaire - c'est à dire de celle qui est refoulée; ils sont effectivement "extraordinaires" parce que c'est exactement ce dont ils prétendent parler.

En l'occurrence, il s'agit de génétique, et de savoir que dans une cellule vivante la fonction du Code, favorise sa permanence au sein de sa reproduction, et sa résistance au sein de son environnement perpetuellement changeant.

J.Cherfas & J.Gribbin ont pensé, qu'à partir du moment où la technologie donne à l'humain le contrôle sur son écologie, l'outil sexuel devenait redondant, et par conséquent le mâle superflux.

Par la suite, Richard Dawkins a accentué l'appréciation des chromosomes, et des gènes, tels que machines d'égoïsme, c'est à dire des structures uniquement animées par la tendance à perdurer. Or le comique de ces livres tient à ce que l'égoïste chromosome le plus exemplaire est le chromosome mâle (le seul de tous les chromosomes à maintenir, à 100% sa trace continûment dans son espèce et son environnement), et qu'aucun des deux ne cite cet exemple d'Y, au titre de la fonction de permanence qu'ils étudient.

Evidemment, cette notoriété du chromose à 100% transmis se banalise dans le gain de la carte du génome, mais ce qui est évident ne vaut pas un livre. L'intérêt d'un texte qui se prive de sa preuve, tient en ce qu'il avertit. Le troisième livre est exclusivement consacré au chromosome Y et à la psychologie de la masculinité; et réédite le refoulement des premiers. Ignorer à ce point le raliement de la génétique à la patronymique est une provocation de la vérité. Ces textes annoncent et favorisent la violence d'une levée du refoulement, égale à leur dissimulation - c'est à dire la plus obscure des réactions machistes de la patriarchie.

Sans doute est-ce leur but, s'il y a jouissance d'écrire. Quant à lire, on peut éviter la fureur qu'ils veulent pour preuve, en tirant l'instruction qu'ils font de la propagande.

THE GREAT DNA HUNT  <2-link><A-link>

(excerpt)

The very academical Genetic Archaeology zooms in on the origins of modern humans.

BY TABITHA M. POWLEDGE AND MARK ROSE

© 1996 by the Archaeological Institute of America

Scientists are also studying DNA from the Y chromosome<2-link>, which is passed only from father to son and is not recombined with the mother's genes. Because changes in the Y chromosome are caused only by mutations, as in mtDNA, it may be used as a clock. Assuming that all living humans share a common male ancestor, it should be possible to estimate when he lived.

According to geneticist Robert Dorit, the first modern human male lived some 270,000 years ago. The most recent research on modern human origins, by John Armour, examined nuclear DNA of populations from around the world. Armour and his colleagues conclude that the evidence fits with the development of modern humans in Africa and an emigration by a small number of them that became the basis for non-African populations. These observations, they say, are more difficult to reconcile with a multiregional model for the origin of modern humans.

IN A BAR IN MANHATTAN A COUPLE

The woman took her glass and asked:

- So the Y thing is transmitted by principle at hundred per cent... She paused and:

- So what ? She said.

- Nothing, answered the doctor, as it is the rule with Truth: nothing.

She pressed the pound key and the laptop resumed the presentation - the multimedia performance was animating a crowd and a synthex voice which said:

Y gene is nothing but is "marked." It is marked by the male bodies - that is all that is remarkable with it! There is indeed a redundance; It is a semantic one. This must be notifed to J.Cherfas & J.Gribbin <2-link>. The remarked mark is called a Metaphore, it is the male body known as father's - whose name designs the Metonymical thread of its permanent transmission along the father-to-son lineage. This attachment, this marking, has been called by Lacan "poincon", by Dawkins "meme", by Verdiglione "semblant", and Theaux, always sexually bold, called it the "white blood".

The doctor pressed the space bar.

- The logical conclusion of this phenomenology, said he, is that the Y Gene must be identify as the Name - he said pushing the screen a little back, for the Patronymic set the Father's Name for the Name of the Name... The Name in Nature is a gene<3-link> - added he with a synthex imitation, this is the cultural semantic foundation of Patriarchy. And this is over... Patriarchy is over - it is  a fact and feminism that boos it stresses but a corpse, as if for denying its extinction... added he in a whispering parenthesis.

- Do you mean that the gene is more in the nature of the logos than in the material realm?

- Yes, for I say that it is over at the same time. The gene has find his place now in the material realm when genetics has discovered its presence - I mean the Genome Project and the entire mapping of the DNA. There are no need anymore for any kind of body to mark its presence among and along the living forms - every gene is marked now 'by' our CD roms or similar memo-pads. From now and for the future, you can follow and track every and each gene by our genetical library.

So the Name of the Father is still nothing but a relic of a Name. Yet be careful! It may still be nothing, but it may still be a flaw. When the Y naming singularity is overtaken by the mapping of the entire genome, there is a flaw if its historical precedence is not acknowledged.

It is a matter of conscious awareness and memory.

- Easy to see the resistance to the genetical card for all in a Democracy, if the repression of the first naming is maintained, said the woman... this Marguaritas is quite a number!

NOTE

a Note about the determination of homosexuality in men by certain Y gene:

One of the Psychoanalytical foundation relates to Wit - and the Venerable Marteau (Dean Hammer in French) may have located the gene of the sense of humour. For the Psychoanalytical assumption that there is one libido and that is it male would firstly look if regions of the Y chromosome determine sexuality in men <subnote> (and thus in humans ).

I know many Psychoanalysts who will continue to laugh for they think that sexuality has little to do with the body (so now, everybody laughs), but I am speaking seriously: once we have acknowledged that sexuality is grounded into an anatomical difference, there is no use to fool oneself any longer (with the renowed penis-envy for instance <subnote>).

The sexual difference that I have deciphered asks indeed which gene's factor causes it? This sexual difference is not a matter of size, it is a matter of topology (see: La Fonction de l'Organe). Fortunately, I have written enough about it, and I can rejoy with all the loghty people awaiting to know why. <H-link>

NOTE/QUESTION

aksed: ...What kinds of ideas do you have about genetics. You've mentioned something about it a few times...

...One way we could begin this process is for you to pick a VERY SPECIFIC topic (how about the one about genes?) and then bring me to understanding with very distinct thought-pictures...

<Q-link>

SUBNOTE: only thenafter will it be possible to examine when this sexuality is 'homo' or 'homo', or 'homo', or 'homo'... and when it is related to the genetics of Narcissism <to Note>

SUBNOTE: the penis is a distension which is not a real difference <to Note>

end of the - Y-naming - Genetical page

END OF THE PAGE

FOOT PAGE

© William Theaux 1949-1999