worthwhile doings

[sue hindmarsh]

James,

So you're all for keeping on keeping-on the same way we've been going? You've no concerns or worries about the future of this planet and its people?

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly wrote:

Women, finding that everyone believes they're as good as men, have no reason to strive to realise the belief. Doesn't this, more than anything, show how inferior women are to men, since they don't see the subtext, and simply have no capacity to see any contrast in mental quality?

What...?

.

[Kelly Jones]

Sue,

Sorry if that was too dense. Here is how I'd unpack it:

Women, finding that everyone believes they're as good as men, have no reason to strive to realise the belief. Doesn't this, more than anything, show how inferior women are to men, since they don't see the subtext, and simply have no capacity to see any contrast in mental quality?

Let's say there is a class of people who everyone else recognises as being intellectually inferior. Now, there is a social policy that says:

"Intellectually inferior people must never be discriminated against, or labelled as intellectually inferior. They must be encouraged to see themselves as intellectually equal or superior. The reason is that their intellectual inferiority arises from a belief that they are inferior because others tell them they are. Therefore, they will naturally become intellectual equals, or superiors, by believing what everyone else tells them: that they are intellectual equals or superiors".

The problem is that, always believing what others tell them, these intellectually inferior folk believe they are intellectually equal or superior to everyone else. They know of no contrast, to show what inferior or superior means. And they will never know the truth, because it's socially taboo to mention it.

They don't see the subtext, and don't have the capacity to see there is a contrast.

Now, women are intellectually inferior to men, generally speaking. That's the class I'm referring to.

I reckon intellectual competition is healthy, and should be encouraged, not dissuaded.


-

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly,

I'm not sure what you mean by "women are intellectually inferior to men"?

Are you saying women are not capable of doing the same jobs men do? Or that they can't be taught the same things men are taught at school? Or that they are somehow mentally retarded and can't function in society?

What's this "intellectual competition"? And why do you consider it "healthy"?

-

[Kelly Jones]

I'm saying that the majority of females are intellectually inferior to the majority of men, judging by their performance in life.

Yes, I am saying that women are generally not capable of doing the same jobs men do, because they copy only the semblance of the job. That is, they lack consciousness of how things relate to other parts of reality, so that their work is poorly done.

Yes, I am saying that women generally can't be taught the same things men are taught at school, because they actually need to be educated to overcome copycatting, passivity, and gullibility, while most men get the idea that they must forge out a fairly unique and individualised path in life.

Yes, I am saying that women are generally mentally retarded and can't function in society to any noticeable degree. Not severely retarded such that they cannot find their way down the street and back home, but mentally retarded such that they can't fix a social problem in their wildest dreams.

What's this "intellectual competition"? And why do you consider it "healthy"?

I mean, to be capable of recognising one's intellectual flaws and to brook no argument in doing the best one can to rectify them.

I've noticed that public education systems are descrying competitiveness as aggressive, bullying, and damaging to self-esteem. I think that's wrong, because competitiveness is a necessary quality in being able to achieve goals. It is the ability to overcome the stress in struggling to change: the ability to pour one's efforts into destroying opposing forces.

It's healthy because sanity is health, and sanity requires logical errors to be destroyed.

I think one of the reasons there have been no female sages is because women took the easy path, settling into a kind of half-hearted mediocrity, into the pull of feminine drifting. The call of unconsciousness was so alluring and their powers of reasoning too weak to see karma returning, so they let others struggle with the idea of perfection, and teaching.

Of course, that is neither good nor bad, ultimately. But that sort of weakness is what Nietzsche called a creeping cancer, a dishonest and miserable ease, that eventually turned the whole body into one dripping and putrid sore.



-

[DHodges]

Yes, I am saying that women generally can't be taught the same things men are taught at school, because they actually need to be educated to overcome copycatting, passivity, and gullibility, while most men get the idea that they must forge out a fairly unique and individualised path in life.

I think your notion of men is perhaps a bit romantic. There are capable people, and inept people, in both genders; I don't see any great disparity in ability. (I've heard some horror stories; only from women about other women, though.)

Men in general are "unique and individualized" to the extent that women like it.

There is still a pretty wide pay disparity, but I think a lot of that is due to women (actually or potentially) taking off years of time to raise children, which men generally do not do; it's very expensive for employers.

I've noticed that public education systems are descrying competitiveness as aggressive, bullying, and damaging to self-esteem. I think that's wrong, because competitiveness is a necessary quality in being able to achieve goals. It is the ability to overcome the stress in struggling to change: the ability to pour one's efforts into destroying opposing forces.

It's healthy to be competitive with yourself - to push yourself to do your best. It's unhealthy (and ego-driven) to judge yourself strictly in terms of how those around you are doing. For most, that will lead to frustration; for the truly gifted, it can lead to being satisfied with mediocrity.

[ChochemV2]

I must be partially blind because I don't see this world where the majority of men are intellectually superior to the majority of women... I see large groups of people who are intellectually on par with hanging beef who have about as much drive to acquire knowledge as I do to have my genitals gnawed off by gerbils but that's about it.

[Kelly Jones]

I think your notion of men is perhaps a bit romantic. There are capable people, and inept people, in both genders; I don't see any great disparity in ability.

It's not much, I agree. But it's hard to argue with the fact that men are the ones who usually take responsibility for the big decisions of a company. If women had the eptitude to make these big decisions, they would be. Others would allow them to, and they would assert their capability to.

Also, I'm not talking about gender roles but intellectual capacity and character. The fact that the majority of men use that capacity to work out the subtleties to rules of soccer, or how to placate women by playing boring games with them, shows significantly more mental capacity than women --- a tiny amount is significant in this realm --- who are obsessed with how attractive they look in stripes today (a far more passive, unimaginative, and short-sighted activity).

Men in general are "unique and individualized" to the extent that women like it.

It's true that human evolution is responsible for creating men as they are, as front-line defenders and hunters on behalf of women and children.

But these qualities enable them to be more intellectually capable, and resilient to great stress --- which are the essential qualities for choosing how to behave, even if it means discarding attachments and deeply held beliefs.

So Nature has been kinder to men in the philosophical realm. And that is not something that women (or the conflict with philosophy) like.

Dave: There is still a pretty wide pay disparity, but I think a lot of that is due to women (actually or potentially) taking off years of time to raise children, which men generally do not do; it's very expensive for employers.

There are a few things to comment on here:

Firstly, making hard decisions cops a lot of criticism from others, so to make the role attractive, there is a big reward. Nothing new here, this is how men have always been sacrificed to society. Money, woman, adornments, fame, status, car, etc. as a compensation for giving up your life.

Women don't get these sorts of rewards because they don't take on those roles, in turn because they are rewarded in terms of protection, comfort, status, adornments and so on.

So, though it looks as though it is "nurture" rather than "nature" which makes the sexes unequal, it is really just a case of the environment in total.

Secondly, women are still taking time off to bear and looking after children, which isn't demanding in the sense of being responsible for the livelihoods of thousands of people. Comparatively, parenting one child or a few doesn't demand so much of one's character. Though it should, actually, if one had a sense of cause and effect. So taking time off to parent is further evidence that women are comparatively inept, since they generally don't have that sense of cause and effect. They're just doing it because it's easier, meaning, it suits how they've been trained. No real thought about it, no desire for a greater challenge. No intellectual capacity to dream and imagine.

Generally speaking.

Kelly: I've noticed that public education systems are descrying competitiveness as aggressive, bullying, and damaging to self-esteem. I think that's wrong, because competitiveness is a necessary quality in being able to achieve goals. It is the ability to overcome the stress in struggling to change: the ability to pour one's efforts into destroying opposing forces.

Dave: It's healthy to be competitive with yourself - to push yourself to do your best. It's unhealthy (and ego-driven) to judge yourself strictly in terms of how those around you are doing. For most, that will lead to frustration; for the truly gifted, it can lead to being satisfied with mediocrity.

I agree that measuring one's achievements relative to whoever is around is mediocre. But it's the spirit of competitiveness itself that I'm talking about here, which includes measuring one's achievements relative to what is possible.

-

[Jamesh]

James,

So you're all for keeping on keeping-on the same way we've been going? You've no concerns or worries about the future of this planet and its people?

-

More or less Yes. Mostly because we are so obviously still more animal than god.

Truths of reality simply will not satisfy the general population, and to be honest I think they are just as likely to lead to a destruction of the human race, as they steer people towards nihilisist mindsets.

The necessary changes will either come about or they won't. In terms of race survival, I'll be dead by the time it matters, so being a "saviour" is not something I'm going to get stressed over.

For me every gain we collectively make, must result in some form of equallising loss over the long term (such as environmental loss, a loss of numbers, a loss of consciousness for the majority, a loss of individuality or personal powers or repsonsibilities and so on).

By neccessity Gods can be only very few in number. And for the record this is what is wrong with your understanding of the masculine-feminine dynamic. Opportunities for the realisation of masculinity must utilised on the larger feminine group.

[sschaula]

The truth is blurred when we stop focusing on individuals and start focusing on groups, looking from a distance.

I may appear to be the most shallow piece of shit you've ever seen, but you don't know what I think about.

Similarly, a lot of women may have very insightful thoughts and contemplate very important things, and you'd never be able to tell just by looking at them.

I've given up grouping people together and stamping a label on their foreheads, then saying "in general" as if it meant anything.

[Kelly Jones]

Similarly, a lot of women may have very insightful thoughts and contemplate very important things, and you'd never be able to tell just by looking at them.

I've given up grouping people together and stamping a label on their foreheads, then saying "in general" as if it meant anything.

My italics.

[Carl G]

The truth is blurred when we stop focusing on individuals and start focusing on groups, looking from a distance.

We always necessarily look from a distance, whether at individuals or groups. Sometimes individuals do fall into groups, and, sometimes the truth blurs no matter where we focus.

I may appear to be the most shallow piece of shit you've ever seen, but you don't know what I think about.

You do come across as shallow, and, I do have some idea what you think about, from your 1200-plus posts full of your words.

Similarly, a lot of women may have very insightful thoughts and contemplate very important things, and you'd never be able to tell just by looking at them.

Similarly, cows may have the same. That word "may" is a heck of a qualifier.

Yet, when most women then open their mouths, one can perceive the quality of their thinking; no "may" about it. Do you disagree?

I've given up grouping people together and stamping a label on their foreheads, then saying "in general" as if it meant anything.

You decry generalization, yet you do it here, and frequently elsewhere.

[sschaula]

The true thoughts of each person are always hidden away, and aren't revealed by a person's speech.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Scott,

Do you mean that in a "no one is truthful" sense, or in "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao" sense or a combination of those?
.

[sschaula]

Well, just that we're all great people "on the inside". We each hold enormous potential.

[Carl G]

Well, just that we're all great people "on the inside". We each hold enormous potential.

The true thoughts of each person are always hidden away, and aren't revealed by a person's speech.

Scott, you're more New Age than I thought, and more delusional.

[sschaula]

Okay.