Aspies For Freedom

yeah... as a member of the LGBTAA* community (thanks tuuli! that's awesome!), when x-men 1 came out, i saw it as a metaphor for the gay thing... since my discovery of my aspie-ness, i see it as even more of a metaphor for the autism specturm.  yes, we ARE the cure!! :happyjump:

I heard that "we are the cure"-quote on tv yesterday, I love it!!!! Fits my theory on nature fighting back homo sapiens :smile:

So for those of you who just can't get enough of that quote, here you can listen to it:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/tls/teaser/small.html

And here you can put it on your computer as wallpaper:
http://home.deds.nl/~shepherd/magneto__w...e_cure.jpg

Enjoy!!
maYa

In a way yes, you can compare it to the theme in the Matrix of Neo versus Smith. Nature enjoys restoring the balance. But if it would be harmonious all the time, it would be static, non-evolving and dead. So maybe humans are just some virus meant to bring some change on planet earth.. eventually though, Nature will restore the balance..[/url]

i think i have a theory similar to crna_kuna's... well i don't see it as nature fighting back homo sapiens, but possibly nature fighting back the world they've (we've) built that puts so much artificial pressure on responding to those things that put is in that stressful 'beta' brainwave state.  billboards, commercials, mtv, politics of fear and disaster, etc.  maybe humans are changing their environment so quickly that the brain just can't keep up, and is sort of saying, 'can't please we slow down a bit and stop to smell the roses, for #$%@ sake???'

from an evolutionary perspective, any major physiological change is usually either a mutation or an 'adaptive trait'... so strickly speaking, calling us mutants wouldn't be totally inaccurate... but then, every human would probably genetically be a mutant in at least one way or another.  once again, this human problem is all about semantics and creating social tension through the limitations of language.

hear hear, conlang! and thank you for the clarification. i'm only a 'couch evolutionist' and i know my definitions aren't always as literal as they could be!

i also agree that it would be a big mistake for us to go seeking out a fight. the best ways of changing our environment, whether social or physical, have almost always been through gentle dipolomacy, caring, and patience.

it can be good, though, to cultivate the inner strength necessary to defend oneself from more aggressive elements out there, if they should ever 'come knocking'. to that end, my *secret power* is first 'running away really fast', and second, my beloved steel-toe boots!  

and lastly, for me, keeping the comparison with x-men in mind is really a just great coping tool and lends me strength when facing the world.

I love this statement! I like Chaos magick and chaos theories. Did you read about the Butterfly Effect? It's utterly cool!!
http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Lorenz.html

I meant more the balance seen in ecosystems after a while (which is not static and also not that orderly, and it can also be broken or go into an unpredictable other direction for example, but it can also be quite logical, because everything is connected to eachother) For example when food gets scarce, the number of dependent animals decrease, the number of animals dependent on these for food also decrease etc. But viruses, rapid changes in the environment, mutations or the introduction of a new species etc. can also cause decrease or increase in numbers of species. But also behavioural reactions point in the direction of a maybe subconscious/instinctual desire for containment of numbers, like that a lot of chickens in a small area start picking the hell out of eachother. I think there's lots of reason to assume there are many mechanisms regulating the numbers of species. Be it in an orderly or a chaotic or an at random manner.

Also, I think human eugenics is a typical desire to order things artificially in opposition to for example random mutation and natural selection...
so maybe we ARE the chaos  :wink:


pt II

Some call autism an epidemy. If we believe that autism is part of who we are... they're refering to us as an epidemy!!!    "we are the cure" is just the funniest, most direct answer to that I've ever heard!  :grin:


pt III

an inspiring comment from Sir Ian McKellen (who plays Magneto):

http://www.dispatch.com/features-story.p...D1-02.html

I study linguistics and I agree with you on this one. We use words and words refer to defined meanings. Because we have shared meanings (we both know what the word refers to and the meaning it refers to is the same for both of us) we communicate through language. Words are still just words. It's the meanings we want to refer to which really matter.

So for the term 'mutant' since I've also read about this only referring to the first member of a species differing from it through a mutation, it's still what others define a mutant as. I haven't found a good name for the descendents of mutants or the individuals carrying mutant genes they've inherited. They are still the (visible) carriers of the mutant gene(s) from the past. (Plus these mutations might actually be multiplying or be increasingly inherited in mutant+mutant combinations or whatever is happening since autism-increase). Maybe we could enlarge the meaning of the term 'mutant' to include those members who have clearly inherited their mutant genes? Since that's allowed in language, it falls under 'neologisms' (new words), under 'meaning extensions' - for example the word 'mouse' is extended by the meaning of the handy tool used for computers, next to the original meaning, the animal 'mouse'.

Unless ofcourse there already is a nice term for descendents of mutants... I couldn't find one yet.. does anybody here know????

I also use the term "subspecies".
This is one definition I've found of it (and I can recognize myself in it):

Subspecies in people is usually defined as 'race'. Again, if race is a subspecies and we can be defined as a subspecies as well, are we then also a nation? And if we are a nation, do we have the right on self-determination (= having your own land, choosing your own government etc)?

So it's a fundamental issue really. I wouldn't aim too low. There's a golden rule from political lobby: you always get less than you ask for, so don't ask too little.

great post, crna!  and thanks for the agreement.  you know, i *thought* i was onto something... but when in doubt i will usually defer to the better-informed, even if i haven't seen their credentials.  :wink:

i agree wholeheartedly with the 'cure' thoughts, and the 'subspecies' theory as well.  

i'm finding all sorts of labels to stick on myself this year... what fun!

excerpts:

Homo aspergerus: Evolution Stumbles Forward
by Gary Westfahl

Indeed, I am now prepared to argue that Asperger's Syndrome should not be regarded as a handicap or as a debilitating condition; rather, it is a tremendous asset, a set of beneficial traits that may someday be recognized as the characteristics of a new, and superior, form of humanity.

In mounting this argument, as I am uncomfortably aware, I am recalling the views of the infamous Claude Degler, who announced to the science fiction community of the 1940s that "fans are slans": readers of science fiction, as evidenced by their high intelligence and keen interest in science fiction, are the early representatives of an emerging new species, homo superior, destined to overcome and supplant those merely human persons who do not like science fiction. (For some contemporary readers, I suppose I must explain that "slans," as depicted in A. E. van Vogt's 1940 novel Slan, are a race of hyperintelligent mutants with psychic powers who live among, and are persecuted by, "normal" human beings.} Much about Degler's life remains mysterious, but it seems that whenever he was not traveling across the country expressing these opinions to any fans he encountered, he was confined at a mental institution, and many who listened to him would probably agree it was exactly where he belonged. However, people with Asperger's Syndrome do not think the way the rest of the world thinks, and they do not care what the rest of the world thinks, and hence they may discern hidden truths in the ravings of a lunatic, and they may have no qualms about expressing such views.

Thus, with everyone else's minds incessantly connected to the zeitgeist of contemporary civilization, those with Asperger's Syndrome will become the people most likely to come up with brilliant new ideas, to create memorably distinctive works of art, to develop entirely new ways of looking at the world.

Perhaps, instead of science fiction's Homo superior, the dominant new form of humanity in the future will be the unanticipated Homo aspergerus.

Whether people with Asperger's Syndrome are pitiable victims or the vanguards of a new human species, of course, remains to be seen. But one thing is already evident: today, there exist growing numbers of people in our society who cannot and do not conform to conventional expectations regarding sociable human behavior. I can hope that the world will soon adopt the tolerant attitudes long found in the science fiction community and embrace these odd people as loyal friends and capable workers, but that is something I cannot control.

What I can control, however, is my own life. And let me tell you, I'm tired of trying to pass for human, and I will no longer apologize for being what I am. So, I say this to the world: I am uneasy in social situations and I communicate that unease; I don't like to maintain eye contact; I always seem emotionally distant and detached. Please deal with it. If people don't like the way I am, then all one can say is that they're prejudiced, and that's their problem, it isn't mine.


Article can be found here:
http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Features/We...gerus.html

Until very recently, comics were for kids and weirdoes, not the adult mainstream.

The X-Men (and Spider-Man, and a lot of Marvel's later superheroes) were conceived at least partly as a reaction against characters like Superman, who, while a feared superbeing, was also a representative of respectability and the satus quo. Everybody in Metropolis, except the bad guys, loved him.

Just one of the reasons that, except for Batman (Frank Miller's and Grant Morrison's takes especially), Wonder-Woman (hot--and intended from the outset to be a feminist symbol), and the Justice League cartoon show (the present one, not that ***** Superfriends), I don't pay much attention to DC COmics...

Mutants don't need a cure!