The Sexes

[Kunga]

What makes rationality better than irrationality? How about we admit at this point that it's simply what we prefer and stop imagining there's an objective basis from which to argue such a preference? I say that because there simply isn't one.

Would you want your brain surgery done by someone that was a self-taught moron ?
Or a experienced,intelligent, well renouned Brain Surgeon, who went to medical school ?

He's obviously going to pick the renown brain surgeon unless he's totally suicidal.
I think what he's really saying is that what one person considers "rational" another will not and it simply comes down to a matter of preference.

Ok.....lets say the choice is simply a male brain surgeon or a female brain surgeon....being that he thinks females are less prone to rationality and logic, he will choose the male to do his brain operation.....but the male has only operated on 1 patient, and is a schizophrenic alcoholic...and the female surgeon has 20 years of successful brain operations....(1,000) operations sucessfully completed, no mental illnesses, and is not a drinker.....lol....her only problem is she has high testosterone levels and frequently has spontaneous orgasms and is a nymphomaniac. Dan being a charming Aussie..........and i am getting silly now.....Zzzzzzzzzzz

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Well...that was my initial impression as a child. The "Father" in heaven that loves all his children b.s.
Then my views as a teen changed, as I realized it wasn't a loving God anymore....but one that must not care...the absent parent....
Then finally as an adult, I realized there couldn't possibly be a God, with all the incomprehensible, horrific shit that life dishes out.
Finally... the realization of the inseperable condition of the Universe....

I'm always so confused as to why people talk about a three letter word without describing their understanding of the three letter word.

That would be like me saying "Jay doesn't exist!"

Who the fuck is Jay? I know a Jay, he exists, so what are we talking about?

"God" means shit all, at least until one explains what they are talking about.


Anyway, to see Tao with all the manifestations, including this very conversation, the universe may as well be yelling "Look at me here, there is 'intelligence' right here".

Contained in manifestations are billions of humans known as having "Life/consciousness/intelligence."

To say there is no intelligence/intention/creation to be found in the manifestations of 'universe' is idiotic and untrue.

There is intelligence and 'creations', the intelligence and life is found in that unexplainable in which all these appearances are arising.

'God' is known as creator of universe, the beginning and end of all appearances.

'God' can only be called the thing from which all 'universe' arises.

'Where' or 'When' or especially 'who'/'how' it arises can't be described, none the less, without description, universe arises, intelligence arises, 'creations' arise, it is undeniable, I'm experiencing it. The only problem is trying to assign it to a being.

If anything it should be equated with 'experience of the mind', which can also be truthfully called the place where, "all universe arises".

Clearly there was never going to be a singular talking dude who has a good reason for hurting your baby. It's like asking why something bad happened in a dream, not a big deal.

[Orenholt]

Ok.....lets say the choice is simply a male brain surgeon or a female brain surgeon....being that he thinks females are less prone to rationality and logic, he will choose the male to do his brain operation.....but the male has only operated on 1 patient, and is a schizophrenic alcoholic...and the female surgeon has 20 years of successful brain operations....(1,000) operations sucessfully completed, no mental illnesses, and is not a drinker.....lol....her only problem is she has high testosterone levels and frequently has spontaneous orgasms and is a nymphomaniac. Dan being a charming Aussie..........and i am getting silly now.....Zzzzzzzzzzz

Well given all those qualifying factors he would probably choose the female as a lesser evil.

[oxytocinNA]

As many of you probably already suspect I am biologically female. I hope this doesn't taint your view of me as thinking something negative about me or not taking me seriously.

There goes the neighborhood .... kidding of course:)

In intellectual discourse - only adherence to existent reality matters. In this respect - sex is not an issue (the earth revolves around the sun - whether you are a man observing this - or a woman).

[Getoriks]

It was brave and masculine of Orenholt to admit that she was nearly offended.

"Nearly offended" is a strange term. Can someone really be 'nearly' offended? Offended or not offended - yes, but nearly...

Barely offended is a better term. That is what I meant to say. She says she was not indulging in being offended, but was just slightly offended, as a sort of bad habit.

Taking offence is a purely feminine trait.

Agreed, being offended is a purely feminine trait. But that's not what I said, Sue.

I said her admitting that she was offended was a masculine trait. It takes courage to admit your flaws.

Of course, just being aware of and admitting them is not enough -- one needs to overcome them -- naturally, with wisdom, of course. :)

[Getoriks]

In intellectual discourse - only adherence to existent reality matters. In this respect - sex is not an issue (the earth revolves around the sun - whether you are a man observing this - or a woman).

Right on. Hopefully Orenholt and others in the future as well can not be so insecure and hung up on what people here might think of them. This forum is about to get busy soon, no thanks to me *wink*, and I would like as many contributors as possible. :)

[sue hindmarsh]

Orenholt,

You've written that you recognize some females as being ‘unconscious’. What do you mean by them being ‘unconscious’?

[Orenholt]

Orenholt,

You've written that you recognize some females as being ‘unconscious’. What do you mean by them being ‘unconscious’?

I mean that they are caused to be dumb essentially and embody the negative things that David points out in his essay such as being short term thinkers, amoral, superficial etc. (why would he see women as "lowly" considering he knows they're caused to be that way and basically blameless anyway?)

If you're meaning it in a different sense such as being "conscious" of the truth of causality, I would say that indeed does describe many women as well, but not ALL women and not ONLY women.

[sue hindmarsh]

Can you give me the percentage of women you consider to be conscious of the truth of causality? What about men?

Can you also give the percentage of women you consider to be conscious of Woman (as David writes of it in Expo)? And then the percentage of men?

[Orenholt]

Can you give me the percentage of women you consider to be conscious of the truth of causality? What about men?

Can you also give the percentage of women you consider to be conscious of Woman (as David writes of it in Expo)? And then the percentage of men?

I have no idea what the numbers are.
Why don't you tell me what the numbers are if there are statistics?
Just because you don't know of any doesn't mean that there aren't any.

[sue hindmarsh]

No, I meant just from your experience - not statistics.

[Orenholt]

No, I meant just from your experience - not statistics.

Probably less than a fraction of a percent for both males and females.
Maybe there are more males that are more "enlightened" about causality but that doesn't man that it's therefore a "masculine" trait.
That's like saying that since more males are colorblind that it's a "masculine" trait.

[sue hindmarsh]

The percentage being so low indicates what?

[Orenholt]

The percentage being so low indicates what?

I don't know that it indicates anything.

[sue hindmarsh]

Do you think it might have something to do with say, the ability to focus on uncovering the truth.

I know from experience that that's a hard thing to do.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Probably less than a fraction of a percent for both males and females. Maybe there are more males that are more "enlightened" about causality but that doesn't man that it's therefore a "masculine" trait. That's like saying that since more males are colorblind that it's a "masculine" trait.

Not to be pedantic but at least certain types of colorblindness are indeed called "sex-linked conditions". Would you then settle for a term like "sex-linked" instead of masculine?

[Orenholt]

Probably less than a fraction of a percent for both males and females. Maybe there are more males that are more "enlightened" about causality but that doesn't man that it's therefore a "masculine" trait. That's like saying that since more males are colorblind that it's a "masculine" trait.

Not to be pedantic but at least certain types of colorblindness are indeed called "sex-linked conditions". Would you then settle for a term like "sex-linked" instead of masculine?

I know that certain kinds of color blindness are sex-linked, that's WHY there are more colorblind men than women, BUT, we still wouldn't say that it's "masculine" to be colorblind for 2 reasons. If we look at the definition of "masculine" we can see that it means "pertaining to or characteristic of men" Not just "A characteristic of SOME men" and "characteristic" means "a distinguishing quality" and "distinguishing" means "making prominent, conspicuous or eminent". So in other words it would be wrong to say "colorblindness is a prominent characteristic of men". And secondly because even though some forms of colorblindness are sex linked, not ALL forms of it are. There ARE some colorblind women, even if it is more rare and a different form.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

BUT, we still wouldn't say that it's "masculine" to be colorblind for 2 reasons. If we look at the definition of "masculine" we can see that it means "pertaining to or characteristic of men". Not just "A characteristic of SOME men" and "characteristic" means "a distinguishing quality" and "distinguishing" means "making prominent, conspicuous or eminent". So in other words it would be wrong to say "colorblindness is a prominent characteristic of men".

But would you then say that a masculine trait like a deep voice might be "sex-linked"? If so, you also said that maybe "more males are enlightened about causality". Wouldn't that make it maybe "sex-linked"?

because even though some forms of colorblindness are sex linked, not ALL forms of it are. There ARE some colorblind women, even if it is more rare and a different form.

Well, you wrote "more males are colorblind". That's a very general statement. If you want to change that statement now into "more males are colorblind type X", then it changes the topic to that specific type and nothing changes but rearranging some chairs.

All things considered I wonder if you're cut out for this type of thinking. It's like constantly changing the goal posts and expect the others to play fair. Reminds me of good old Brokenhead & family, they had a hard time reading properly the simplest of dictionaries but it didn't stop them from correcting people with it regardless. But never mind all that!

[Orenholt]

But would you then say that a masculine trait like a deep voice might be "sex-linked"? If so, you also said that maybe "more males are enlightened about causality". Wouldn't that make it maybe "sex-linked"?

No, a deep voice IS masculine because it is a prominent or conspicuous characteristic of men. In other words, MOST men have a deeper voice than most women.

Well, you wrote "more males are colorblind". That's a very general statement. If you want to change that statement now into "more males are colorblind type X", then it changes the topic to that specific type and nothing changes but rearranging some chairs.

It was meant to be a general statement rather than a specific one because I was showing that women can be colorblind too even if it's not the exact same kind. It's a broader category. "Type X" is specific.


If I may invoke another example let me put it to you like this.
Dalmatians are dogs and poodles are dogs. They are both dogs.
Some males have have colorblindness type X and some females have colorblindness Y. They are both types of colorblindness.

And to apply the dogs example to consciousness:

I don't mind some dogs being called spotted, because some in fact are, but to make the word "spotted" itself which already encompasses a certain group of animals synonymous with "dogs" when it doesn't apply to all the animals within that group and actually applies to some animals outside of the group is inaccurate. You wouldn't call a brindle pit bull spotted just because it's a dog. Likewise you wouldn't say that a leopard is a dog just because it has spots.

compare to the original:

I don't mind some women being called unconscious, because some in fact are, but to make the word "woman" itself which already encompasses a certain group of people synonymous with "unconscious" when it doesn't apply to all people within that group and actually applies to some people outside of the group is inaccurate. You wouldn't call a woman unconscious just because she's a woman. Likewise you wouldn't say that a man is a woman just because he is unconscious.

All things considered I wonder if you're cut out for this type of thinking. It's like constantly changing the goal posts and expect the others to play fair. Reminds me of good old Brokenhead & family, they had a hard time reading properly the simplest of dictionaries but it didn't stop them from correcting people with it regardless. But never mind all that!

I think you're just not understanding me yet.

[Orenholt]

Do you think it might have something to do with say, the ability to focus on uncovering the truth.

I know from experience that that's a hard thing to do.

Of course it has something to do with that.
Most people are "double ignorant" about causality. They don't know and they don't know that they don't know.
It's like someone who walks through tall grass but doesn't know about snakes.
It definitely takes some thinking to figure it out but most people aren't exposed to the conditions necessary to MAKE them think about it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But would you then say that a masculine trait like a deep voice might be "sex-linked"? If so, you also said that maybe "more males are enlightened about causality". Wouldn't that make it maybe "sex-linked"?

No, a deep voice IS masculine because it is a prominent or conspicuous characteristic of men. In other words, MOST men have a deeper voice than most women.

But the reason for that is because of testosterone, sex chromosomes, etc. So it's "sex-linked" although it might come out differently because of natural variances in testosterone level, physical build and of course also some women can have a deep voice because of other causes. It doesn't change the general link with testosterone and masculinity.

I was showing that women can be colorblind too even if it's not the exact same kind.

But why would "more males be colorblind" (your words) in the general sense? It's a genetic sex chromosome related issue. That's called "sex-linked" and no matter how many rare types, exceptions and variations in real life occur which will mix up the divisions, there's still a noticeable gender difference in place, based on various strong causal factors.

I don't mind some women being called unconscious, because some in fact are, but to make the word "woman" itself which already encompasses a certain group of people synonymous with "unconscious" when it doesn't apply to all people within that group and actually applies to some people outside of the group is inaccurate. You wouldn't call a woman unconscious just because she's a woman. Likewise you wouldn't say that a man is a woman just because he is unconscious.

It's actually very common to call a man "woman" because of this "unconsciousness" expressed in emotionalism, egotism, materialism and a complete lack of spiritual dimension in every breath taken. Someone without "balls" to have a conscience. But if you want to make the claim that in a feminized world and society celebrating the spectacle of appearances, this distinction is loosing its effect as far as observation goes, I wouldn't disagree much anymore.

[Orenholt]

But the reason for that is because of testosterone, sex chromosomes, etc. So it's "sex-linked" although it might come out differently because of natural variances in testosterone level, physical build and of course also some women can have a deep voice because of other causes. It doesn't change the general link with testosterone and masculinity.

Ok then I change my mind and agree with your statement that deep voices are sex linked.
We can't however say that wisdom is sex linked because testosterone has nothing to do with one's capacity to reason.
There may be a correlation but not a causation. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

It's actually very common to call a man "woman" because of this "unconsciousness" expressed in emotionalism, egotism, materialism and a complete lack of spiritual dimension in every breath taken. Someone without "balls" to have a conscience. But if you want to make the claim that in a feminized world and society celebrating the spectacle of appearances, this distinction is loosing its effect as far as observation goes, I wouldn't disagree much anymore.

If you are calling a man a "woman" because he is unconscious then you are calling a leopard a dog because it has spots.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

We can't however say that wisdom is sex linked because testosterone has nothing to do with one's capacity to reason. There may be a correlation but not a causation. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

Not sure about "capacity to reason" either, or at least the raw intellectual capacity. But what do you think of sources like these? And nobody is arguing for direct causation (it's too complex for that) but strong correlations have been suggested.

[Orenholt]

Not sure about "capacity to reason" either, or at least the raw intellectual capacity. But what do you think of sources like these? And nobody is arguing for direct causation (it's too complex for that) but strong correlations have been suggested.

I am open to the idea that there are genetic differences in the way that males and female perceive things and that it can affect the way they behave. I don't think that genetics are the sole determining factor though.
And sure, there might be a correlation but I wouldn't say it's a STRONG one.
Ultimate wisdom or enlightenment or whatever you want to call it seems pretty rare for both men and women.
If 90% of men were wise and only 2% of women were wise then you'd definitely have a case.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If 90% of men were wise and only 2% of women were wise then you'd definitely have a case.

And you would have a case if more than 5% of all relevant thinkers, artists, creators, architects and leaders would have been female even in the most modern of societies. Even if you think history will catch up some day, it would not help your case for denying strong correlations up until this point in time. And I haven't presented any other case really in this discussion, the genetic factor was something you brought up as example.