Making peace with femininity

[Steven Coyle]

Mitosis.

The Goddess was beside Herself when She invented sex.

You have captured the essence.

:-)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

all things are really only one thing

You also asked:

What do you think of that thing they call "self-love" ?

I'm not sure who the "they" are you are referring to, but I'll take it you mean the herd.

Well, yes, you can refer to yourself as the herd if you want to.

It is completely insane to love or hate something when neither you nor it exists inherently.

Elizabeth,

You asked:

Why is it insane for a non-inherent being to have non-inherent love for another non-inherent being?



I'll have to get you to describe what you think a "non-inherent being" and "non-inherent love" is?

If the best you can do is to start Clintonating, it is not worth debating the point with you.

Clintonating.

Elizabeth,

I asked you:

I'll have to get you to describe what you think a "non-inherent being" and "non-inherent love" is?

As you can see in your original sentence below, the concepts are yours, and therefore you must know what they mean.

Why is it insane for a non-inherent being to have non-inherent love for another non-inherent being?

I cannot reply to your above question until you describe what you're getting at - for as it stands, it's not making any sense.

It is completely insane to love or hate something when neither you nor it exists inherently.

Okay, the words are not exactly the same, so perhaps this will clarify for you:
non-inherently = not existing inherently

As you can see in your original sentence below, the concepts are yours, and therefore you must know what they mean.

It is completely insane to love or hate something when neither you nor it exists inherently.

Since the concept is also yours, you must also know what it means.

Unless you present your question as something other than mere Clintonating, I will not answer.

[brokenhead]

Hey, Elizabeth, I didn't even have to click on the "Clintonating" link to know what it was going to be!!!

[Kelly Jones]

know what it means

It means explanations of the nature of things appear different from each other, but the meaning is still the same. The second thought, which is reason, looks for the meaning, not the appearance. And once you know it, you are unlikely to forget it completely.

[Faust]

Let me ask you something. When you were in school, was it a big bus or a little bus you rode in every day? And did you change classrooms during the day, or did you stay in the same room and the teachers came in and out?

what is the meaning of this?

[brokenhead]

Let me ask you something. When you were in school, was it a big bus or a little bus you rode in every day? And did you change classrooms during the day, or did you stay in the same room and the teachers came in and out?

what is the meaning of this?

I don't remember what we were talking about. Whatever it was, I was not getting my point across, so I just wanted to know if you were one of those "special-ed" people. It was supposed to be a humorous dig. Apparently you didn't get it.

[daybrown]

Mitosis.

The Goddess was beside Herself when She invented sex.

You have captured the essence.

:-)

Not me, I am merely translating what was already understood. I picked it up from Campbell and Gimbutas.

[Laird]

It is completely insane to love or hate something when neither you nor it exists inherently. To love or hate a thing, you have to believe it exists separate from you. But all things are really only one thing – which isn’t really a thing at all, for it is all there is - the totality.

How do you really know that this is the best way of viewing reality? I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Steven Coyle in the thread, "Another Wisdom Test":

How do you know that it's not even more correct to view things as essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating with one another?

Whatever IS at any moment IS the same as you. Cancer, dust, chocolate, you, atomic bombs, kisses and hugs, twinkling stars, blood and guts – no real division whatsoever between them. Therefore, you can't love one and hate another.

No "real" division huh? What would qualify as "real" division then?

So, in answer to your question, if my mind is focused wholly on the truth, I don’t need to “eliminate” love and hate – for they naturally don’t arise, due to having no-thing to support them.

More's the pity for you that - by your own claim - you've lost the capacity to love.

[xerox]

...

[DHodges]

More's the pity for you that - by your own claim - you've lost the capacity to love.

Is that such a terrible thing?

[Laird]

Laird (to Sue Hindmarsh): More's the pity for you that - by your own claim - you've lost the capacity to love.

DHodges: Is that such a terrible thing?

It's pretty sad. There's so much to be had in love.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Gender identity is about as valid to perceiving reality as is any other form of psychological delusion. Racial or social or economic identity may as well be promoted. Sure, as far as deluded psychological constructs go, masculinity has more utility than femininty, or more to the point, masculinity is less deluded than feminity.

The reality is that we were born into male or female bodies, and we have masculine or feminine traits. Utility for what? Pregnancy is very utilitarian for propagating the species, and I'd say that pregnancy is more feminine than masculine. Being deluded means not accepting reality. If "masculinity" means to believe that masculinity is better than femininity, then that would mean that masculinity is more deluded than femininity. Masculinity and femininity both have their place and their purpose. Neither is better or worse, except for particular purposes.

[daybrown]

I woke up with this dialogue in my head:
The Goddess:"What's that noise?"
Chaos:"The Big Bang."
Goddess:"oops."

SO- where did this come from? Neurological and psychological studies reveal that infants "know" a lot they were never taught, but born with.

You cant argue with it.

[Sapius]

I woke up with this dialogue in my head:
The Goddess:"What's that noise?"
Chaos:"The Big Bang."
Goddess:"oops."

SO- where did this come from? Neurological and psychological studies reveal that infants "know" a lot they were never taught, but born with.

You cant argue with it.

May be I can.

If, physical genetic information can be passed on from generation to generation, including some mutation in between, then why can’t certain learnt traits be progressively passed on? The thing we call “instincts”, which we don’t really think over.

I see that with the each progressive generation our intelligence seems to increase. The school syllabus for the same grade of 10, or 20, or even more years ago was far too simple than today. What I learnt in the fifth grade is now being taught in the second and children grasp it quite easily.

So, I don’t think a newborn is born with anything other than what must have not occurred in our entire past history of planet earth. I really don’t know how to explain it, but even certain basic memories could have been passed on in some form that we may not be able to justify scientifically. After all, how does a gene “remember” which muscle to make out of which tissue? I think “memory” is being stored progressively; certain traits and may be certain "mentallity" included.

[Carl G]

I see that with the each progressive generation our intelligence seems to increase. The school syllabus for the same grade of 10, or 20, or even more years ago was far too simple than today. What I learnt in the fifth grade is now being taught in the second and children grasp it quite easily.

Based on my observations, I disagree. I'm not alone in this view.

[Sapius]

It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.

Carl, I actually agree! BUT, only as far as the US goes, and not necessarily in its entirety. However, every Empire has its rise and fall, and unfortunately the US golden age will not last long, I’m told that by 2050 the white population will be a minority compared to Asians, so who do you think will rule the US in say just 200 years. It is land of opportunity and the early settlers grabbed that opportunity, for the consequent generations it was like receiving it in a silver platter for they did not face much hardships, and the new waves of opportunity seekers who actually reach there through hardships are taking full advantage of quite an open immigration policy, settling legally and illegally. In any case, US will be no more then a big money making market for the Asian world, in fact, it already is.

The last time I was in the US, I couldn’t find a thing labeled ‘made in the US’, all I saw was Made in Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, China, India, Indonesia, Sir Lanka, Poland, Spain, Turkey, etc, etc,. Including many reputed brands.

You would be naïve to apply US educational statistics to the rest of the world, (and I don’t think that article reflects the whole reality); irrelevant of pockets of drawbacks, as a whole, we have been and are capable of creating wonders. The tiny mobile phone with the world at your finger tips is one of those wonders, but we take such things for granted because it has become a part of our daily life and we don’t really remember how different life was 5, 10 or 15 years back, let alone look further down the line.

I take it you live in the US, and don’t have much firsthand observational experience beyond it. You may disagree as much as you like, but that won’t make a difference to global progress. I see it globally, not nationally.

[Carl G]

U.S. vs. The Rest of The World isn't the issue. The context in which you posted your opinion was that (human) intelligence is increasing and that's evidence for the idea of genetic memory:

If, physical genetic information can be passed on from generation to generation, including some mutation in between, then why can’t certain learnt traits be progressively passed on? The thing we call “instincts”, which we don’t really think over...

So, I don’t think a newborn is born with anything other than what must have not occurred in our entire past history of planet earth. I really don’t know how to explain it, but even certain basic memories could have been passed on in some form that we may not be able to justify scientifically. After all, how does a gene “remember” which muscle to make out of which tissue? I think “memory” is being stored progressively; certain traits and may be certain "mentallity" included.

Are you telling me U.S. babies are not born with genetic memory, and the rest of the world's babies are?

[Dave Toast]

I'm not so sure that mentality or memories are literally passed on genetically, but you can make a good case as to how they are figuratively.

In a certain sense, traits are produced genetically by definition as it simply means an inherited characteristic, although obviously not all traits are inherited. These genetic traits are then liable to produce certain mentalities. So someone male has a genetic predisposition to being short and turns out to have the trait of shortness. This may then produce a mentality associated with small man syndrome. Hence there is a hereditary component to the causality behind this particular aspect of their mentality, a mentality you could say they were genetically predisposed to.

That is a simple example using an obviously inherited trait. But genetic predisposition goes far beyond such simplicity when it comes to increasing the probability of certain mentalities being developed. So, for example, a less obvious but every bit as inherited trait would be that of being a supertaster. A supertaster is liable to have a disliking of bitter foods, a sweet tooth, an aversion to fat, etc; producing decreased vegetable intake, increased lean meat intake, increased sugar intake, etc. as well as the likes of increased pickiness when it comes to food. These may in turn produce certain associated mentalities (like, for instance, pickiness in general), mentalities that quite definitely have a genetic inheritance component in their makeup. Fleshing out the detail of the scope of the influence of this genetic inheritance on mentality is limited only by your imagination. So a supertaster again is more likely to end up being a highly nourished and therefore physically well developed individual, due to their probable liking for rich foods and lean meat. Coupled with a gentic predispoition to heavy musculature and tallness, this particular set of traits might well produce an individual who grows up as a powerful alpha male. This person learns to relate to the world in a certain way different to others i.e. fear of physical confrontation is likely a smaller component of their mentality, a strategy of intimidation might get them what they want better than a strategy of rational discourse or a strategy of people pleasing, etc. And so the concomitant mentalities are formed. Perhaps the decreased fear of physical confrontation is more likely to produce an extrovert as opposed to an introvert and the predilection for intimidation strategies might produce an individual others might call an arsehole. The mentality of this extrovert arsehole, in a very general way, could be said to have been written in stone when his mother and father did the dirty.

More and more we are seeing that DNA and RNA are responsible for inherited traits previously unthought. Likewise we are understanding more and more about just how big a part inheritance plays in every aspect of our lives, mentality included.

I think you were referring more specifically to learned traits though. The way you use the example of increased intelligence seems a red herring to me in that it is more likely through cultural heritage, rather than genetic, that accumulated knowledge is passed on and assimilated more quickly and readily in successive generations. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing the marked decreases in numeracy and literacy that are prevalent in the western world presently (due in part to the likes of higher incidence of computers in the classroom, txtspeak, anti-itellectualism and the increasing celebration of stupidity etc.), as proliferation of genetic traits cannot happen within such a small timescale. Intelligence wise, we are said to be no more capable today than at the dawn of modern man. It's just that knowledge is accumulated, rationalised, disseminated and thereby absorbed, more and more efficiently.

Evolution wise, the idea of genetic memory these days refers to the accumulated experience of the history of the race only in the sense that adaptive changes are selected and proliferate. So, for instance, the immune system we are born with is a product of the history of our species' battle with pathogens, already set up to deal with a lot of what has previously been thrown at us, thanks to the mechanism of genetic memory. The Lamarkian idea of the inheritance of characteristics aquired during a lifetime, and thereby the mechanism for inherited memories, is now moribund, if not defunct. Whilst there seems to be no mechanism to explain inherited memory as you propose it, there is definitely a mechanism that produces inherited biological traits, which in turn produce associated mentalities that can justifiably be referred to as inherited. From there, it's not too much of a stretch to refer to certain aspects of these inherited mentalities as inherited memories. So our supertaster who is a picky eater and thereby may become picky in life in general, just as perhaps their father and grandmother were, could be said to have inherited the 'memory' of a 'look before you leap' attitude to a higher degree than those without that trait, as long as we use the term inherited memory less than literally.

[Sapius]

Are you telling me U.S. babies are not born with genetic memory, and the rest of the world's babies are?

With all due respects, allow me to engage with Dave and expand my understanding, and may be it will help you too, because I see you don’t have a clue of what I was trying to say, due to my lack of proper expression.

Can you please allow me that?

[Carl G]

Of course. Please continue.

[Sapius]

Thanks Carl.

Very well expressed, Dave.

Please note, my vocabulary is quite limited, and I would always welcome if someone gets the gist of what I’m trying to say and express it in much better terms.

I'm not so sure that mentality or memories are literally passed on genetically, but you can make a good case as to how they are figuratively.

Yes, I don’t mean it as an exact ‘reincarnation’ of an ancestor, with all or part of personal memory intact, but in a much deeper sense related to RNA rather than DNA. RNA is not fully understood as I understand it. I haven’t much knowledge about it either. If you click the “about RNA” icon in this picture, and go forward two pages, you will see the different types of RNA, and suspicion of probably there being more smaller RNA’s.

In a certain sense, traits are produced genetically by definition as it simply means an inherited characteristic, although obviously not all traits are inherited. These genetic traits are then liable to produce certain mentalities.

Exactly, but traits inherited could be because of numerous complex reasons, and not necessarily from two or three generations back, but may be ten or even twenty or more generations back. It could be more like a dormant gene passing on generation-to-generation, and may be triggering ten generation later. And what passes on is may be just a few percent of what one of the ancestor had, and may be a few percent of another, and so on. Rest of the major part is left blank for me to develop my own unique traits in accordance to my experiences, influenced by the few percent of acquired traits however.

But genetic predisposition goes far beyond such simplicity when it comes to increasing the probability of certain mentalities being developed.

YES!

The mentality of this extrovert arsehole, in a very general way, could be said to have been written in stone when his mother and father did the dirty.

Or even say the "good" work done twenty generations back, but it may be relatively quite a small RNA transfer, but deeply seated and partially effecting how a person "thinks", but thinks HE does, in the most unique fashion as an end result.

More and more we are seeing that DNA and RNA are responsible for inherited traits previously unthought. Likewise we are understanding more and more about just how big a part inheritance plays in every aspect of our lives, mentality included.

I have no doubt about all that. We may be basically in the “kindergarten” as far as our knowledge in that field goes.

I think you were referring more specifically to learned traits though. The way you use the example of increased intelligence seems a red herring to me in that it is more likely through cultural heritage, rather than genetic, that accumulated knowledge is passed on and assimilated more quickly and readily in successive generations.

No, what I mean here is that our capacity of grasping intellectually has increased tremendously over the past say 10 thousand years, and especially in the last two hundred years. It’s like how the speed of a processor has been doubling every year, increasing to every six months for the last two ~ three years However, certain behavioral patterns could also be RNA related, which too may be transferred, thereby effecting a mentality like you explained about the super-taster. On the other hand, knowledge gained effects behavior and mentality, and a certain change in my mentality, in turn may effect or have a minor change in my RNA pattern deep within, and this change may be passed on to trigger say after some generations, but would be a very minor part with huge effects when that persons experiences are also taken into account, but then too, according to his environment he faces. Say which country is he born in? Does his parents follow a religion? Are they open minded or closed? So although a small portion is acquired, external influences AND his internal OWN thinking, since that is the unique part which is open to all, creates a uniquely new mentality, with far better grasping power than ten generations back. Now, I know someone might say that that does not apply to ALL, so one must also keep in mind, extinction happens all the time, and survival of the fittest applies for mental evolution too.

Intelligence wise, we are said to be no more capable today than at the dawn of modern man. It's just that knowledge is accumulated, rationalised, disseminated and thereby absorbed, more and more efficiently.

And I am thinking exactly in those terms, as species, not according to particular nationality.

The Lamarkian idea of the inheritance of characteristics aquired during a lifetime, and thereby the mechanism for inherited memories, is now moribund, if not defunct. Whilst there seems to be no mechanism to explain inherited memory as you propose it, there is definitely a mechanism that produces inherited biological traits, which in turn produce associated mentalities that can justifiably be referred to as inherited.

I had to lookup ‘moridund’, and I don’t know the ‘Lamarkian idea’ either. I will google it. However, I am suggesting that certain of my “memories” do effect my RNA, which are as good as recording certain of my “memories”, and effecting partially in some far off generation.

So our supertaster who is a picky eater and thereby may become picky in life in general, just as perhaps their father and grandmother were, could be said to have inherited the 'memory' of a 'look before you leap' attitude to a higher degree than those without that trait, as long as we use the term inherited memory less than literally.

Yes, I am not talking in a literal sense, but neither do I think it is all “biological”, but something in between related to say RNA.

[Shahrazad]

Excellent post, Dave Toast.

The Lamarkian idea of the inheritance of characteristics aquired during a lifetime, and thereby the mechanism for inherited memories, is now moribund, if not defunct.

Really? This surprises me as I thought that in the future we would find that some acquired features are passed on, otherwise evolution seems much less likely.

-

[Faust]

Excellent post, Dave Toast.

The Lamarkian idea of the inheritance of characteristics aquired during a lifetime, and thereby the mechanism for inherited memories, is now moribund, if not defunct.

Really? This surprises me as I thought that in the future we would find that some acquired features are passed on, otherwise evolution seems much less likely.

-

HAHAHA, NOW you notice this? This is why evolution is such RUBBISH, because acquired characteristics aren't inherited!! This single fact makes the sheer nonsense theory of evolution even more laughable. Take the rubbish and idiotic idea that man was descended from apes, the fact that acquired characteristics aren't inherited makes this impossible. First you would need an ape that was born bipedal, not acquired, good luck with that. Then you would need another ape that was born hairless, then magically the two would breed and create man!

[Shahrazad]

HAHAHA, NOW you notice this?

No idiot, now it comes up in conversation. I've known this for decades.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

acquired characteristics aren't inherited!

It has been well illustrated through dog breeding that acquired characteristics are inherited. Otherwise if you took 2 toy poodles and bred them, you'd get a wolf.

Furthermore, he wasn't even talking about that kind of acquired characteristics (maybe you want the evolution of man in another thread). He was talking about those characteristics acquired during a lifetime.

I'd say that it is possible to pass something like that on as well since our DNA and RNA are reproduced, and slight alterations can happen during replication, and not all of those replications are going to lead to cancer. The altered version could then be passed on to offspring.