Man and Woman's Evolution

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

Nick, where is your vision, your reverence? You're in here, yet again, obsessing about "Woman". When you learn how to transcend your own gender, you'll stop doing this. This whole thread is indeed a worldly matter but, if that's what you choose to focus your energy on, so be it. It really makes no difference to me.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote:As for "Mother Nature" and "Father Time" themselves, They don't care one iota what age we're living in, whether the stone age, steel age, industrial or technological age nor do they care what happens to this tiny little speck of dust we call earth.
That's hardly surprising, given that they are the products of your imagination.
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

It's hardly surprising that you entirely missed the point of what I was relaying, given your penchant for pedantry. You seem to have trouble grasping the bigger picture. As several people here have pointed out to you, it's quite clear you're just here to play word games with people and aggrandize yourself, by making false claims of enlightenment. This is why most people here simply give up and ignore you.
User avatar
Loki
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 am

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Loki »

Nick Treklis wrote:
Carmel wrote:Men will always worship women. You don't really think that is ever going to change do you?
Either men are going to have to stop worshiping women or our species is doomed to premature extinction. Only time will tell which comes first.
But Nick, extinction is utterly inevitable no matter what. Sure, there are things we can do to prolong survival, but eventually there will be an end to everything. So how about we just relax and have some fun for the short time we're here?
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

I don't think many of the posters really understand what Nick is trying to say.

For the most part, women distract men from their higher purpose, which is to create order in society, and create order within their own minds, and the minds of others.

Women easily become a distraction to men, because a woman's beauty and sexuality causes men to devote all their mental and physical resources to keeping her happy, and maintaining her desires. The problem is that her desires are usually excessive, without direction, and based on the flavor of the week.

That is why unless a man lives with a woman who has a bit of masculinity in her when it comes to survival, it is a man's duty to control her, control her thinking to better align with his own, and this could be done in a gentle way. Not the mental and physical abuse men are known for.

The other option is non-participation. Both are valid options in my view.

The present disorder we see in society, as Nick suggests - the inequalities, the military machines, the worship of fashion and symbols of upper rich classes is the result of men who do not know themselves, and compete to be the top dog on the block. If men fully understood themselves, and were no longer give in to the primitive impulse to compete to be the top dog, then these structures would crumble, and a deeper order would be realized. However, men want women more than they want a utopia because their delusional minds cannot even fathom a utopia that doesn't involve the man slaving away with their women at the center of it. Men are conditioned to be competitive losers, always striving to get that win, and hopefully win a woman's affection.

The universe has a sense of humor, as men worship woman as a symbol, a false god, in the same way Christians worship jesus on the cross as a a false symbol. False symbols are the enemy of man, as they sever his connection from the infinite, and allow disorder in society and in the mind to run amuck.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Kelly Jones »

Nick wrote:Everyone has a story about some fucked up relationship they had with somebody in the past, and they all at least intuitively sense the insanity of it. From there you might be able to build up to a point where you can make your case some what palatable to the average person.
The usual scenario is that it takes two to tango. Usually justifiably, men blame themselves for their part in the disharmonious relationship. So they put the insanity down to their own emotionalism, and then display that "guilt" to women to get pity (or contemptuous superiority, a la Forgiving Wonder-Woman Vs. Useless Bastard Husband). I was writing an email about this recently, so I'll copy and paste it:
On the bus to Surfers Paradise yesterday, there was a young man who tried to pick up any girl sitting in a seat near to him. He could tell that they were not interested in his views (having to dress up in a tuxedo for a debutante ball was a pain, but it was to please the girls; a feminist he spoke to called God a woman, and he thought that was rubbish; etc.), but he wanted them to like him, so he acted more feminine - getting excited over trivia deliberately.

Males realise they can't get women to like them, unless they suppress their views about women. So often, it's only if women reject them, that they feel like they don't have to keep their views quiet. Then it comes out - but it's also tinted by their wounded pride. So, when another woman comes along who accepts them, they shut up again and say they only said those things about women because they were desperate and hurt. Then, what usually happens, they punish the new woman to make sure she won't leave them, by inoculating her to their views, but combining it with the wounded feelings to arouse her pity, so that she ends up staying with the grumpy bastard largely because she feels superior to his wretchedness.

No wonder a man like Stefan Molineux is so happy to agree with Cordelia Fine's assertions, despite them being astounding. It's not the science of sex differences that bother men, it's that they want women to see them as ready to crumble and serve her. But what is it all for? That's the stupid thing.

Probably it's just animal insecurity. They sell out to the lies to get the support of society.
Actually, I caught myself doing something like this today. I have a hydrapak for drinking water easily while cycling. The cheapest one I could find, was made of bright pink material. I didn't like the colour, but bought it anyway because it was cheapest. But I found myself thinking today that car-drivers in the heavy city traffic might be more careful driving around me because of the colour of the hydrapak. They'd see the bright pink, and think "Female - treat her with care." I remember the powerhouse of urban cycling activism in Sydney, Fiona Campbell, deliberately wore her hair in a neat long braid, so as to be treated more courteously. And we all knew, during Critical Mass, why there were a couple of pretty petite females in the line of riot police. Namely, society closes ranks against those who mistreat women.


.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote:It's hardly surprising that you entirely missed the point of what I was relaying, given your penchant for pedantry.

My point was that it's meaningless to call "nature" and "time" indifferent, especially when you haven't even defined what you mean by these things.
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

Ryan:
For the most part, women distract men from their higher purpose, which is to create order in society, and create order within their own minds, and the minds of others.

Carmel:
(control, control, control...)

Yeah, sure, it's too bad women can't distract men from their lower purposes as well. Maybe in some hypothetical, alternate universe, Dick Cheney was a playboy and we aren't dealing with the consequences of having had a sociopath at the helm for eight long years. :)

Ryan:
Women easily become a distraction to men, because a woman's beauty and sexuality causes men to devote all their mental and physical resources to keeping her happy, and maintaining her desires. The problem is that her desires are usually excessive, without direction, and based on the flavor of the week.

Carmel:
A man who is in a relationship with the type of woman you describe here is equally as directionless and desirous as the woman he chose. Conscious men don't pick women like that for a mate.

Ryan:
That is why unless a man lives with a woman who has a bit of masculinity in her when it comes to survival, it is a man's duty to control her, control her thinking to better align with his own, and this could be done in a gentle way. Not the mental and physical abuse men are known for.

Carmel:
Conscious men are attracted to conscious women and vice-verse. Abuse occurs more typically in relationships where the man is overly masculine, macho and the woman is overly feminine. Based on my observations and experience, the most successful relationships are those where both partners are somewhat mentally androgynous. There's a more natural ebb and flow, give and take with this dynamic, as opposed to the when the man is overly masculine man and constantly trying to contol his partner.

Ryan:
The universe has a sense of humor, as men worship woman as a symbol, a false god, in the same way Christians worship jesus on the cross as a a false symbol. False symbols are the enemy of man, as they sever his connection from the infinite, and allow disorder in society and in the mind to run amuck.

Carmel:
Jesus was a man! hahaha! ...

...nevermind :)

Like the Universe, Mother Nature and Father Time, I have a sense of humour too, but some of you people here are so dry that I think if I tossed a match on you, you might instantaneously burst into flames.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Carmel wrote: but some of you people here are so dry that I think if I tossed a match on you, you might instantaneously burst into flames.
I double dare you. But it could also be seen as definitely distracting!
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

lo...wait, I was about to laugh at your remark, but Dan has officially banned laughter here! What a schmuck;)
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Kelly Jones »

Based on my observations and experience, the most successful relationships are those where both partners are somewhat mentally androgynous. There's a more natural ebb and flow, give and take with this dynamic
Ah, yes, the soul-mates. When a person finally sees their own self in their lover - then the circle is complete. No disharmony between the two egos. Trap snaps shut.

The most conscious persons aren't attractive to anyone, because they are empty. There is no need or loss in their gaze. Why didn't you include them in your account, Carmel?


.
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

Hal:
The most conscious persons aren't attractive to anyone, because they are empty. There is no need or loss in their gaze. Why didn't you include them in your account, Carmel?

Carmel:
Actually, I was referring to human beings, not androids, robots and automatons.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Kelly Jones »

Are you absolutely certain that humans are incapable of non-attachment?
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

...tosses a match on Kelly...poof!

It's nothing personal, just my way of expressing non attachment. :)
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

The Ryan and Carmel Dialogue

Post by Tomas »

Ryan:
Women easily become a distraction to men, because a woman's beauty and sexuality causes men to devote all their mental and physical resources to keeping her happy, and maintaining her desires. The problem is that her desires are usually excessive, without direction, and based on the flavor of the week.

Carmel:
A man who is in a relationship with the type of woman you describe here is equally as directionless
and desirous as the woman he chose. Conscious men don't pick women like that for a mate.

-tomas-
Very good, Carmel. You win a cookie!
Last edited by Tomas on Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Nick »

Loki wrote:But Nick, extinction is utterly inevitable no matter what. Sure, there are things we can do to prolong survival, but eventually there will be an end to everything. So how about we just relax and have some fun for the short time we're here?
To tell you the truth, for somebody like me there's not much "fun and relaxation" to be had in this world. Also, if the Woman problem can be resolved for most of humanity I see incredible potential in our species, enough to make it my life's work.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Kelly Jones »

Great to see that liberty with the matches - are you as willing to make a bonfire of yourself? Or is it only others that you'll set fire to?
User avatar
Loki
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 am

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Loki »

Setting fire to yourself, setting fire to others....what's the probability here that your attempt at egolessness is in fact highly egotistical and that you are just fooling yourselves? I'd say the chances are pretty high.
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

Loki wrote:Setting fire to yourself, setting fire to others....what's the probability here that your attempt at egolessness is in fact highly egotistical and that you are just fooling yourselves? I'd say the chances are pretty high.
Carmel:
This entire thread was inspired by ego and attachment just like every other thread about "WOMAN" here is. What's the chance that the people here will stop fooling themselves and realize that they are externalizing an internal problem? I'd say the chances are pretty low.
Last edited by Carmel on Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Kunga »

Carmel wrote:lo...wait, I was about to laugh at your remark, but Dan has officially banned laughter here! What a schmuck;)


LOL !!!
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

Dan reinstituted laughter?! hahaha! ... I mean...lol!
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Blair »

Carmel wrote:...tosses a match on Kelly...poof!
How can Kelly be a poof if she's a girl?
Carmel

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Carmel »

Here is just one example of many of the inane and blatantly biased things that have been said by the men in this thread:

Initially Nick claims that the men were both the hunterers and the gatherers, then slightly alters his statement after I confront him on its inaccuracy.
He patronizingly says, in his ego inspired version of revisionist history:

Gathering encompasses more than just an after dinner desert such as tasty little berries. Gathering also encompasses things like firewood, ore, and the like. Just look at a woman's body. It's obvious she never had to face nature's harshest elements or do any hard labor.

Carmel:
from wiki:
"A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few number of documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[18]

There is also evidence that women were hunters historically as well. If he had done even a basic search on this subject, he would've known this.

Then there's Cory's knee jerk reaction to my post stating that "men are monogamous", no evidence just a random, arbitrary and patently false statement.

I could go on but I won't. It's bleedingly obvious that the underlying motive in the critiques of women here are ego driven.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Kelly Jones »

Carmel wrote:This entire thread was inspired by ego and attachment just like every other thread about "WOMAN" here is.
The very topic of Woman is fraught with difficulty, because it's so entwined in the human psyche. It's no good pretending that it isn't so. Both the human male and the human female are equally caught up in it. It's no use pretending it can be transcended. Womanliness is psychologically a very real bedrock, and it is extremely difficult for people to acknowledge it criticially and impartially.

It's understandable if there is over-compensation in trying to deal with that attachment. It is a slippery slope.

And there is no point in pretending it doesn't exist. There is definitely a major emphasis in human society on the special psychological role that women play, and a very strong force exerted on women (including by themselves) to play that role. Even though there may be some exceptions, they are exceptions.

For example, let's look again at the division of labour. This is one of the basic ways that the roles started to develop, and can help reveal the origins of Woman. There clearly are divisions of labour. Look at that quote, Carmel:

A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few number of documented exceptions to this general pattern.

You mention the Aetas as exceptions, but look at how many women there actually are in the tribe: "Mining, deforestation, illegal logging, and slash-and-burn farming has caused the indigenous population in all parts of the Philippines to steadily decrease to the point where they number in the thousands today." (Wikipedia/Aeta) A small population is in crisis mode, so it'd be understandable if it was "all hands on deck". So, this may not actually be a genuine exception.

So getting back to the role of Woman, clearly she's the one bearing and feeding babies, so that plays a major part in the evolution of Woman. So we get an evolution of that basic Mother role into a more diverse character: the person who looks after most domestic bodily needs, like food and water, clothes and bedding, basic health and hygiene. In a tribal setting, it's more efficient to pool resources, at which point there are nurseries, gathering groups, clothes-making groups (weaving, dying, spinning), and sharing of herbal remedies. With all the children running about, women also play the role of mediators in squabbles, soothing infantile grumblings. All of these roles are played by the women of the tribes, to the point of the evolution of Woman - at least, the basics. Woman evolves as a multi-tasking organism focussed on the domestic sphere.

But now, because life survives through fitness, and by dominating threats to the environment, we should also remember that the social context is of hierarchies. So, another important role played by women is how talented she is: the more effective at Woman, the higher her social status. So not only does she perform all those tasks, performing the role and social character of Woman, but she also competes with other women. She seeks to be chosen as the best woman by a high-ranking male mate: so she adorns herself, is an "exceptional woman", good "mother material", and so forth.

Yes, men also have played the Man role, and that's also a very interesting topic to explore. But for now, the point is to understand that the psychology of Woman has some particular drawbacks that Man doesn't have. Woman is a social creature, who finds her identity relative to the others in the tribe. She isn't out in the wilds alone, combatting forces by her own skill and wit; her raison d'etre is to be the social hub, harmonising conflicts, filling bellies, soothing tempers, making bodies comfortable, and making people happy and cooperative. Her very identity here is something that seeks to be approved of, to be regarded as pleasant and magical, so that domestic systems run smoothly. That is, she is not a loner, who achieves by grabbing fortune by the forelock - but one who looks outwards, relatively passively, to the effects she has on others.


.
Last edited by Kelly Jones on Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Man and Woman's Evolution

Post by Blair »

Your indignance speaks volumes, Carmel.
Locked