Esteemed Dan. I will with great relish and some gusto provide an outline of criticism of the 'core doctrines' that animate Kevin and David and you too. And I will describe where the 'destructiveness' that I note in the formulations of GF is located. I will make an effort to point it up and also to contrast it with other, more 'healthy' alternatives. Perhaps I will toss it together a little later today though I have been mulling over various ways of presenting it.
Leyla wrote:I'm with you now on this, and was with you when I wrote that remark, which is why I ignore Alex.
This is both a truth and a 'lie'. Or a wee bit of self-deception. Just before the fated closure of our Beloved Forum this strange chick was following me around attempting to get me to 'engage' with her. I thank the Lord above that I am now in the 'ignore' category and, if God exists, hope that he will keep the devilish woman at bay!
I function best when I am a 'voice of commentary' about the ideas put forth here. What I write (what I think and see) does not require commentary necessarily. As I said earlier it is 'interesting' to observe the wide ranging contortions that are reaction to my thoughts. But a couple of comments in keeping with my 'voice of commentary' modus.
Note that Diebert pulled out the dusty skeleton
the ole Weiningerian analysis, channeled through David, dressed it in a sheet, and used it as it is almost always used: a means to channel a group of pre-established notions about masculinity and femininity, to call it forth, and to rally a group to use it (again as it is most often used) as an attack banner against ideas that are not liked or accepted. Is it or is it not the 'ultimate'
ad hominem fallacy? Just a question, folks!
In my view, this is a point where a clear 'group think' is evident here, and it can be traced back to the Founders and their 'love' of Weininger. I have also read Weininger---in a somewhat glossary manner but I have read him---and will say that some part of his analysis is considerable. But this is often true with Idea Sets: it is almost never that we can reject completely any Idea Formulation Sets. It is usually that we have to
sift through them and attempt to thresh out those parts that represent error or deviation.
It is not that notions of the differences between masculinity and femininity cannot be or are not relevant in discourse, but the utility and even 'salubrity' of the use depends on the general orientation of the person using them. Needless to say the general use of Weiningerian doctrines, within the GF formulations, have severe problematical aspects. In my case, it has not been easy to winnow through them, partly because I found that I am in agreement with a certain definition of sexism (in a neutral sense, if that is possible), and I did not have at hand other, I think more conservative but nonetheless well thought-out and defined presentations of woman as possibility (as for example with Gertrude von le Fort, within the Christian/Catholic camp). So, it has taken some months of reading to get more clarity about the depth of the issue of the definition of woman, but as an independent project, not overlorded by Marxian feminism nor driven by religious conventionalism. (Or any other pole).
As with so many things in life (as I said to Russell), and it is certainly true in the world of ideas, and philosophy and religion in our own culture,
the surface reading is never sufficient. The surface impression is rarely sufficient. A snap-judgment will more often than not be a bad judgment. And so it requires willingness to sift through knotty problems. With that in mind I will say that in respect to something like 'Absolute Reality' we face
the most knotty of knotty questions, as have men since the dawn of philosophy. I leave this observation as it is for the time being.
Now, I wanted to mention Jupi's contribution, the one he stacked of Diebert's or 'piggybacked' as it were (in the game of 'speaking in the third-person to a person sitting there in the room'). It is the 'anti-Jewish' position or more properly the 'anti-Judaism' position. Very very sticky. Very dark and psychological. Very present, if submerged. If I read correctly (although skimming I couldn't locate exactly Jupi's tract in Weininger's chapter on Judaism in Sex & Character), Jupi switched 'the Jew' for 'Alex' which, as all who have read here are aware, is always a card that is played on GF. Dan avoids it, for good reasons I think, and so does David, thank Heaven. But this strange 'card' is played here by others especially when the 'going gets rough' or the attack really comes out in the open. I am not complaining per se. Just 'noting'. I also noted this with dear Pye's comments about 'Judeo-Christianity 101'.
It is part of general rejection of much that can be sheltered under the titles 'Jew, Judaism, Judeo-Christianity' and is a very strong element within the GF formulations I have found. Possibly because GF is forced 'philosophically' (metaphysically and ontologically?) to absolutely reject all belief-elements that are at the foundation of 'the Bible' and to see them as manifestations and embodiments of 'ignorance'. There is a great deal that can and should be said about this, in my view. But again, as with the really knotty questions, to seriously investigate them requires time and effort and lots of reading and thinking. My impression, here, is that many make a quick leap into all manner of judgment without *really* understanding what the issues are. And a 'Zen' substitute (a catch-all phrase for aspects of Buddhist doctrines, however tendentious and modified they have become, here) is thrown up as a sort of 'defense'. A set of beliefs with almost talismanic powers.
Unfortunately, it allows for a 'breaking away from' a realm of knowledge and ideation that is so central to Western ideas that, I suggest, is
not separable. It has to be confronted and responsibly dealt with, but most of the most vocal do not have any of the background required to do this. This is a culture-wide problem and in this specific sense as the 'mass man' comes into the arena he dominates the conversation with his shouts and gesticulations and drowns out a 'higher' and more sophisticated---indeed 'intelligent'---conversation. And yet these people become virulently aroused by that which they seem to 'hate'. I can really only suggest that there are alternatives, and necessary alternatives.