@ Kidd - yeah, I figured as much.
I just thought it would be useful to some of the other guys to add my perspective on it to this thread.
The whole essence of the book is that our biological, evolutionary programming determines our actions to a VERY large, probably unanimous degree. It's not something we, Man or Women, can 'choose' to follow or abide by. It's always there, whether we are aware of it or not. Take Women and babies for instance; It's my belief that a Women's primary directive in their life is to pro-create and harvest a baby. If they don't manage to do it, their gene pool is erased from the planet, and they will 'literally' feel like they have failed their purpose. I'm sure this impulse is just as strong in us aswell, although I can't say I want to father a kiddie right now in ANY way. As an aside, I was thinking about the absentee father phenomenon - I'm not sure it's such an unnatural occurrence tbh. I think it may be a biological 'nudge' for men to go and continue spreading their seed around a variety of other broads. Afterall, when we lived more communally, it was generally considered the communities roles to raise children together, rather than Husband+Wife as the sole carers.
Anyway, you say it's a motivation, I say it's a biological blueprint which no measure of intellect and awareness can allow you to escape. That's not to say you have to father a child to be 'happy' or whatever word you care for, but the impulse will be there and if not abided by, may lead to you feeling a lack later in life. The issue is largely that our society has changed so much that our impulses are incongruent with our environment, which is to say people generally express those impulses in a.....strange way. Our environment is artificial, something I have always felt was undeniable, but could never give clarity too until the last 5yrs or so.
You know, Oleg may have actually written it in a "biological imperative, evolutionary programming rules all, people are androids/automatons who have no real choice" kind of way, but its actually irrelevant to me what he intended. I pick and choose nuggets of insight and mold them into my own worldview based on my own experience and testing in my own life. I never take anything at face value - I have a picture in my head of how the world works, and if I come across a new and interesting point of view, I carefully consider it and test it before I incorporate it and make it a part of how I see the world.
NOBODY has a monopoly on truth, and I question EVERYTHING that I read/hear. I question what Kidd/Grinus say, I question what GP over at BallsProject has to say, what ANY source has to say.
So, even if Oleg intended it in that android/automaton kind of way, I don't agree with that, so therefore thats not how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as, "here's some biological programming which is going to create motivations that are going to be added to a whole soup of motivations that are already swirling around in each person,' which I think is a more useful/accurate interpretation.
This discussion has come up before with Sniper - the question of "why would you trust someone else's answer more than you trust your own answer?"
Why would anyone else have a more accurate picture of your
world than you