Man and Woman's Evolution

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
Yes, and:

The Aeta women are more successful hunters != The Aeta women are better hunters.

As in, Lady Gaga is more successful than Mozart != Lady Gaga is better than Mozart.

Carmel:
The example you give demonstrates a qualitative value. The hunting stats compare quantitative values, therefore your analogy is irrelevant, a non sequitur.

It's really quite simple. The Aeta women's hunting success rate is 31% compared to only 17% for the men's, meaning it is nearly double the success rate of men's. I can't put it much simpler than that, if you want to keep up the pretense that you don't understand this, have at it, but you'll only be digging a deeper hole for yourself.

jupiviv:
I can't put it simpler than that, and if you still think I'm being egotistical or in denial of anything, that's your problem.

Carmel:
Actually, it's your problem, but you lack the wisdom, experience and insight that's necessary to be able recognize it.

[Kelly Jones]

The general consensus that men historically did the hunting and women did the gathering? Do you want to tie this into some larger point? such as cooperative efforts between genders produces a more successful society.

That's fine, if that's all you want to examine. But I see that the different psychologies evolved in that context, and that's interesting as a philosopher.

you seem to have some pathological need to create an artificial schism between the genders which exists primarily in your own head. You continually project that outward, never realizing that it's an internal issue.

Do you recall my mentioning Simon Baron-Cohen to you? Perhaps you'd like to accuse him of being pathologically overly-imaginative.

You carry on preaching against "WOMAN" much like an obsessed evangelist preacher who constantly preaches against the hellfires of Satan. When are you going to wake up to the fact that "WOMAN" isn't the problem? The problem is yours and yours alone.

Do you think Simon Baron-Cohen is like an obsessed evangelist preacher, when he uses facts about masculine psychology to construct diagnostic theories for autism? Why not?


.

[jupiviv]

The example you give demonstrates a qualitative value. The hunting stats compare quantitative values, therefore your analogy is irrelevant, a non sequitur.

No, I showed that that's what you are doing. You are equating a quantitative value with a qualitative value, i.e, a higher success rate with being better hunters(in terms of skill/talent.) You can also be said to be equating two different quantitative values with each other(success rate and skill/talent.) != means "does not equal to". The "!" stands for a negative.

It's really quite simple. The Aeta women's hunting success rate is 31% compared to only 17% for the men's, meaning it is nearly double the success rate of men's. I can't put it much simpler than that

That's what your stat says, and I never denied that.

[Carmel]

Referring back to my previous comment:

"I wonder why in every single discussion I've ever had with both Kelly Jones and jupiviv, they have had the last word...every time, without even a single exception, because I know that they and their egos will never, ever stop...Their pettiness and pedantry would continue for days if I weren't the bigger person and let it go.

You can both prove me wrong by dropping this, but I won't be holding my breath."

--

You simply don't get it, jup. All you're doing here is confirming how petty you are. Why does it bother you so much that the Aeta women have a higher hunting success rate than the men? ...and more importantly, why are you allowing yourself to be a slave to your ego by continuing on with this sort of pettiness.

Normally, I would've dropped this a long time ago, but you pull this kind of crap on people constantly, and frankly, I'm a little sick of it, so I'm calling you out on it.

You need to learn how to detach. It's really quite easy...you just stop...simply...stop.

[Ryan Rudolph]

just a comment on detachment:

Detachment happens when you stop identifying with the group you were born with. For instance: man, woman, and so on, and simply examine without any identification. Identification is bias because it is based on an egotistical attachment to the thing in question.

For instance: Suppose men are more outwardly violent than women, which seems to be true. It may not be true for my individual brain or it could be. And then I examine, by saying, I wonder if this is true for this brain.

And suppose after the examination, I conclude, yes, there is some violent cognition in this old brain, this old limbic system. It is reason that is able to see that, reason is totally honest, and doesn't hide from facts, and to be reasonable, takes humility.

Humility which is the result of detachment.

[jupiviv]

"I wonder why in every single discussion I've ever had with both Kelly Jones and jupiviv, they have had the last word...every time, without even a single exception

That's not only irrelevant but false(at least in my case for the latter).

You simply don't get it, jup. All you're doing here is confirming how petty you are. Why does it bother you so much that the Aeta women have a higher hunting success rate than the men?

As I said before, it doesn't.

You need to learn how to detach. It's really quite easy...you just stop...simply...stop.

It took you two ellipses to stop that sentence, and you're telling me to learn about detachment?

[Carmel]

[quote="Carmel"]"I wonder why in every single discussion I've ever had with both Kelly Jones and jupiviv, they have had the last word...every time, without even a single exception

jupiviv:
That's not only irrelevant but false(at least in my case for the latter).

Carmel:
You're lying, not surprisingly. It's most definitely true and relevant. It's proof that you're a complete fraud, you make claims of enlightenment, yet your pettiness and ego are off the charts.

Carmel:
You simply don't get it, jup. All you're doing here is confirming how petty you are. Why does it bother you so much that the Aeta women have a higher hunting success rate than the men?

jupiviv:
As I said before, it doesn't.

Carmel:
lol! Reality begs to differ. You wasted a lot of time and energy on the subject.

Carmel: You need to learn how to detach. It's really quite easy...you just stop...simply...stop.[/

jupiviv:
It took you two ellipses to stop that sentence, and you're telling me to learn about detachment?

Carmel:
I see you missed the point, not surprisingly. I know how to detach. I've done it in every single discussion I've ever had with you, but you can't stop. Your ego simply won't allow it.

[Carmel]

Kelly:
Do you think Simon Baron-Cohen is like an obsessed evangelist preacher, when he uses facts about masculine psychology to construct diagnostic theories for autism? Why not?

Carmel:
No, because he uses scientifc methodology in his approach. There's at least the attempt to be objective. Conversely, the views you espouse are often highly subjective, biased, random and arbitrary and therefore, essentially meaningless, to me, at least.

[Robert]

Carmel, just on the last word/ego/pettiness thing with jupiviv; you are doing yourself exactly what you're accusing jupiviv of by reposting the same arguments/points in successive posts of yours. I'm pointing this out not to defend jupiviv particuarly, but just so you know it's pretty obvious that you're not helping your own position. I get the frustration, but it's becoming counter productive and irrelevant to the thread itself.

[/end amateur mod mode]

[Carmel]

Hi Robert,

Yes, I completely understand your point, it's not as though I'm unaware of what you're saying. I was just mildly curious to see how far jup was willing to take his psychopathology, that is, his narcissistic need to be "right", play word games and have the last word which he does with everyone here, not just me, so I decided to push the issue further than I normally would.

Also, I have a particular aversion to religious hypocrites, people who make grandiose claims, "enlightenment" in his case, then chronically fail to live up to them, so I confess, I had to sink down to his level, as I intentionally tried to out him as a fraud, not that he doesn't do a good enough job of that on his own.

[jupiviv]

You wasted a lot of time and energy on the subject.

No, you did.

By the way, your claim that I'm bothered about the fact that Aeta women are more successful hunters than men is clearly false. My objection was to your equating their having a higher success rate to being "better," for the reasons I previously stated.

I was just mildly curious to see how far jup was willing to take his psychopathology, that is, his narcissistic need to be "right", play word games and have the last word which he does with everyone here, not just me, so I decided to push the issue further than I normally would.

As you don't offer any evidence for what you say here, this completely destroys your credibility. Also, if you are saying that you started this whole discussion only to prove that I want to have the last word, then that's just silly.

Also, I have a particular aversion to religious hypocrites, people who make grandiose claims, "enlightenment" in his case, then chronically fail to live up to them, so I confess, I had to sink down to his level, as I intentionally tried to out him as a fraud, not that he doesn't do a good enough job of that on his own.

It appears to me that you think you are qualified to judge whether I'm enlightened or not. If you do, then you have to show whether you are enlightened yourself, otherwise it is very arrogant of you to have such thoughts.

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
It appears to me that you think you are qualified to judge whether I'm enlightened or not. If you do, then you have to show whether you are enlightened yourself, otherwise it is very arrogant of you to have such thoughts.[/quote]

Carmel:
All you've proven to me by making claims of enlightenment, is that you're a braggart, or that possibly you suffer from delusions of grandeur. You most certainly haven't proven that you are "enlightened", in fact, you demean the very word "enlightenment", when you make such claims and fail to live up to them. i.e. chronic pettiness/ego. etc. Perhaps, you'd like to share with us why you believe yourself to be enlightened?

[jupiviv]

@Carmel, again, you seem to know what enlightenment is, which you have yet to prove. And in the one or two times I did say I was enlightened, I backed it up with reasoning. Claiming to be enlightened certainly doesn't demean the word enlightenment, provided the claim is true. You have again claimed that I show chronic pettiness and ego, without giving any evidence. However, that is true - I do show pettiness and ego, and in the moments that I do so, I am not enlightened.

Perhaps, you'd like to share with us why you believe yourself to be enlightened?

Because I use logic with the sole purpose of using logic.

[Kelly Jones]

Carmel,

Simon Baron-Cohen notices that a person with autism is more likely to be male, than not. So he's presented theories about some peculiarly male traits that characterise autism.

I've noticed that most of the people who are sages are male. In fact, I've never found a female sage. That perspective comes from what I regard wisdom to be. It's not at all arbitrary or random. So I've presented theories about the specific male traits, and non-feminine traits, that characterise the wise person, and - interestingly enough - those few females who show a profounder kind of inclination to the Infinite, like Celia Green, or Sue Hindmarsh, and myself too, also show those traits.

How is my method any different to Simon Baron-Cohen's?


...

[Carmel]

jupiviv:

Carmel, again, you seem to know what enlightenment is, which you have yet to prove. And in the one or two times I did say I was enlightened, I backed it up with reasoning.

Carmel:
You claim to know what enlightenment is, which you have yet to prove. When you originally made the claim I asked you to explain it, you never did. Are you the only person on the planet who believes yourself to be enlightened or have other "enlightened" people confirmed this?

jupiviv:
Claiming to be enlightened certainly doesn't demean the word enlightenment, provided the claim is true.

Carmel:
You can claim anything over the net, that doesn't make it true. There's no reason for me to take your claims at face value. You might suffer from a pathology which causes grandiose thoughts. It's a reasonable conclusion on my part given your tendency to constantly aggrandize yourself. You failed to address this issue.

jupiviv:
You have again claimed that I show chronic pettiness and ego, without giving any evidence.

Carmel:
You've given more than enough evidence of this yourself.

jupiviv:
However, that is true - I do show pettiness and ego, and in the moments that I do so, I am not enlightened.

Carmel:
progress! Well, at least that was honest.

Carmel:
Perhaps, you'd like to share with us why you believe yourself to be enlightened?
jupiviv:
Because I use logic with the sole purpose of using logic.

Carmel:
Do you actually consider this statement to be solid "proof" of your self proclaimed enlightenment?

[Carmel]

Kelly:

Simon Baron-Cohen notices that a person with autism is more likely to be male, than not. So he's presented theories about some peculiarly male traits that characterise autism.

I've noticed that most of the people who are sages are male. In fact, I've never found a female sage. That perspective comes from what I regard wisdom to be. It's not at all arbitrary or random. So I've presented theories about the specific male traits, and non-feminine traits, that characterise the wise person,

Carmel:

I wasn't necessarily just referring specifically to sages, but your entire worldview on gender. but nevertheless, there are specific feminine traits that are advantageous to wisdom also.i.e. receptivity, knowing when to yield, humility. You seem to bypass those entirely, and there are masculine traits that can hinder wisdom, most obviously the "male ego", when it becomes too hard and unyielding, it becomes a petty tyrant.

Every person I know who has attained any degree of wisdom has the best qualities of both the masc. and the feminine - and lesser of the negative aspects of both.

Kelly:
and - interestingly enough - those few females who show a profounder kind of inclination to the Infinite, like Celia Green, or Sue Hindmarsh, and myself too, also show those traits.

Carmel:
great. Are you done learning?

Kelly:
How is my method any different to Simon Baron-Cohen's?

Carmel:
Your views regarding gender are highly biased. They aren't always grounded in reality. For example, some of your exposes on women are essentially fiction. You paint this picture of women that is utterly fantastical and surreal. There's nothing "logical" about it and no, you're not using scientific methodology. It simply rings hollow to me. It doesn't even come close to describing the women I know.

[jupiviv]

You claim to know what enlightenment is, which you have yet to prove.

The proof lies in whatever I write. To the degree that my output is logical, I am enlightened. This goes for everyone. What separate proof do you want?

When you originally made the claim I asked you to explain it, you never did. Are you the only person on the planet who believes yourself to be enlightened or have other "enlightened" people confirmed this?

Two things - firstly, I don't need anyone to confirm that I am enlightened. Secondly, a confirmation by an enlightened person isn't proof of my enlightenment for you. If you want proof(or disproof) of my enlightenment, you have to find it yourself by analysing what I write, do etc. The same goes for proof of your enlightenment.

You have again claimed that I show chronic pettiness and ego, without giving any evidence.

You've given more than enough evidence of this yourself.

Which means that you won't need to give any evidence, right...?

Perhaps, you'd like to share with us why you believe yourself to be enlightened?

Because I use logic with the sole purpose of using logic.

Do you actually consider this statement to be solid "proof" of your self proclaimed enlightenment?

Yes, because being enlightened is the same as being logical. If you think that I'm never completely logical, then you'd be right in saying I am not enlightened. But you would have to give evidence.

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
Yes, because being enlightened is the same as being logical.

Carmel:
So you think that enlightened=being logical? That's your definition?
Then why not just refer to yourself as "logical" instead of demeaning the word enlightenment?

jupiviv:
If you think that I'm never completely logical, then you'd be right in saying I am not enlightened. But you would have to give evidence.

Carmel:
How are you defining "logical"?

[jupiviv]

So you think that enlightened=being logical? That's your definition?
Then why not just refer to yourself as "logical" instead of demeaning the word enlightenment?

As I said, I'm not demeaning enlightenment, because I don't think it can be anything else other than being logical. If you think it can be anything else, you have to say what it is, and give reasons for saying so.

How are you defining "logical"?

Applying logic fully to every single aspect of one's life. To put it in another way - valuing truth above everything else, no matter what happens.

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
As I said, I'm not demeaning enlightenment, because I don't think it can be anything else other than being logical. If you think it can be anything else, you have to say what it is, and give reasons for saying so.

Carmel:
I see, so in your worldview the words "enlightened" and "logical" are synonymous. So a person performing a logical problem such as a math problem would be in an enlightened state, according to your narrow view of enlightenment.

jupiviv:
Applying logic fully to every single aspect of one's life. To put it in another way - valuing truth above everything else, no matter what happens.

Carmel:
How do you define "logic" and "truth"?

[jupiviv]

I see, so in your worldview the words "enlightened" and "logical" are synonymous. So a person performing a logical problem such as a math problem would be in an enlightened state, according to your narrow view of enlightenment.

Not necessarily, because performing a logical operation is not the same as being logical. My computer, and an eagle diving from the sky to snatch a catch a fish in a pond, both perform logical operations, but they are not logical.

How do you define "logic" and "truth"?

Essentially - simply as consciousness, and consciousness is everything that appears to the mind - videlicet, all concepts(A=A.)

[Kelly Jones]

I wasn't necessarily just referring specifically to sages, but your entire worldview on gender.

The only reason I focus on gender is to elucidate wise psychology. If you're not focussed on that deep and profound perspective, and use it to consider human behaviour and motivations, you'll misconstrue everything I say about gender. You'll even regard what I write to be out of touch with reality. I'm sorry if you didn't realise this, but I would have thought it very obvious.

there are specific feminine traits that are advantageous to wisdom also.i.e. receptivity,

I think the receptivity, openness, and tolerance that is characteristic of women, boils down to an inability to perceive contradictory ideas. They are quite happy to embrace diversity - because they don't tend to place value on intellectual coherence. Men tend to be far more intolerant of different ideologies, and argumentative, because they perceive the contradiction. Men buck cognitive dissonance because they value intellectual consistency, women submit because they don't.

For instance, sisters can be completely different in their "ideas", but will have very little difficulty bonding and enjoying each other's company. Largely, this is because their differences are superficial. Like fashions they can wear. Their husbands will have trouble even shaking hands.

knowing when to yield,

Yield to what? A superior? But I see that many women make themselves inferior by choice. For instance, they'll refuse to do some technical chore around the house, because it is too difficult, risky, or the consequences of getting it wrong are greater. They tend to opt for the easy, safer bets. In the intellectual sphere, a male often intensifies the conflict because he has a great valuation of solid-through-and-through comprehension and understanding. He may deliberately haze and interrogate, to test for weaknesses. And if there is evidence of dissonance in an opponent's thinking or behaviour, he won't yield until the issue is resolved. This even occurs when a mediocre male comes up against a superior thinker: he slathers them with his problems, even intensifies the scale, because they have beaten him and he would like a stronger character to demonstrate the resolution.

humility.

The only humility is understanding the truth about self. But I know of no women whose very being is immersed and founded in such understanding.

You seem to bypass those entirely,

See above.

and there are masculine traits that can hinder wisdom, most obviously the "male ego", when it becomes too hard and unyielding, it becomes a petty tyrant.

It all depends what the object of domination is. Yielding, if the object is an argumentative person, is equally petty.

Every person I know who has attained any degree of wisdom has the best qualities of both the masc. and the feminine - and lesser of the negative aspects of both.

Can I ask who you're referring to?

Kelly: and - interestingly enough - those few females who show a profounder kind of inclination to the Infinite, like Celia Green, or Sue Hindmarsh, and myself too, also show those traits.

Carmel: great. Are you done learning?

No, I'm not done learning, but I've made sufficient progress to know no women who have put down deep roots, deep whole-of-the-mind roots, into formlessness.

Kelly: How is my method any different to Simon Baron-Cohen's?

Carmel: Your views regarding gender are highly biased.

Yes, of course. I can't take a position without rejecting another position. That makes me highly biased towards the position I take. Baron-Cohen is also highly biased, for the same reason.

They aren't always grounded in reality. For example, some of your exposes on women are essentially fiction. You paint this picture of women that is utterly fantastical and surreal. There's nothing "logical" about it and no, you're not using scientific methodology. It simply rings hollow to me. It doesn't even come close to describing the women I know.

Can I ask, how wise do you think you are?

How many years will it take you to be perfectly in the formless realms? Do you have any throwing karma? How much time a day do you spend in samsara?


.

[Carmel]

Kelly:
The only reason I focus on gender is to elucidate wise psychology. If you're not focussed on that deep and profound perspective, and use it to consider human behaviour and motivations, you'll misconstrue everything I say about gender. You'll even regard what I write to be out of touch with reality. I'm sorry if you didn't realise this, but I would have thought it very obvious.

Carmel:
..."out of touch with reality" yes, indeed, but there's no misconstruing on my part. You're so thoroughly fractured from your "feminine" side to the point that it has become pathological.

Kelly:
I think the receptivity, openness, and tolerance that is characteristic of women, boils down to an inability to perceive contradictory ideas. They are quite happy to embrace diversity - because they don't tend to place value on intellectual coherence. Men tend to be far more intolerant of different ideologies, and argumentative, because they perceive the contradiction. Men buck cognitive dissonance because they value intellectual consistency, women submit because they don't.

Carmel:
The intolerance of ideological differences some men experience can be the result of extreme or even pathological narcissism as well. It's not always the case that there is a higher goal. Fred Phelps, Jim Jones and David Koresh are intolerant of others' ideological differences, for example, yet they mistakenly believe(d) themselves to be promoting spiritual goals. All of these men certainly lack the more positive feminine traits that have been mentioned i.e. "receptivity, openness and tolerance."

Kelly:
humility.
The only humility is understanding the truth about self. But I know of no women whose very being is immersed and founded in such understanding.

Carmel:
That's anecdotal, so not a particularly convincing argument, in fact, it's not an argument at all, but nevertheless, how many men do you know who have this understanding and why do you think you're qualified to judge? are you claiming enlightenment too?

Carmel:
and there are masculine traits that can hinder wisdom, most obviously the "male ego", when it becomes too hard and unyielding, it becomes a petty tyrant.
Kelly:
It all depends what the object of domination is. Yielding, if the object is an argumentative person, is equally petty.

Carmel:
I rather expected that you wouldn't grok this point. It points to a deeper problem, but you don't possess the self honesty that is required to see it.

Kelly:
No, I'm not done learning, but I've made sufficient progress to know no women who have put down deep roots, deep whole-of-the-mind roots, into formlessness.

Carmel:
Translation: No, Kelly is not done learning, but hey! look over there at those women! Kelly is better than them! Nearly everything you say about others, men and women alike, is an attempt to place yourself above them. i.e. constantly referring to people as "mediocre".

What more do you have to learn and how do you plan on going about doing it?

Kelly:
How is my method any different to Simon Baron-Cohen's?
Yes, of course. I can't take a position without rejecting another position. That makes me highly biased towards the position I take. Baron-Cohen is also highly biased, for the same reason.

Carmel:
Oh I see, so he didn't use scientific methodology? What a schmuck. Perhaps he should consider quitting the field of medical research and become a *coughs* "philosopher".

Kelly:
Can I ask, how wise do you think you are?

Carmel:
compared to whom? It's a relative matter and it's clear to me that we have different conceptions of what wisdom is. Also, it's not as though the state of wisdom or enlightenment is static. What can be gained, can be lost. Furthermore, everyone, even the wisest people have blind spots, that includes you, me and everyone here...and there.

[cousinbasil]

Not necessarily, because performing a logical operation is not the same as being logical. My computer, and an eagle diving from the sky to snatch a catch a fish in a pond, both perform logical operations, but they are not logical.

Another way to say this is that a computer, for example, is not rational. Using either deductive or inductive reasoning can be considered as being logical, but one would have to be rational to know when to use which, and why, that is, to choose a purpose or basis for the decision.

[jupiviv]

Can I ask, how wise do you think you are?

compared to whom? It's a relative matter and it's clear to me that we have different conceptions of what wisdom is. Also, it's not as though the state of wisdom or enlightenment is static. What can be gained, can be lost. Furthermore, everyone, even the wisest people have blind spots, that includes you, me and everyone here...and there.

That doesn't answer the question, and you probably know it too.

Another way to say this is that a computer, for example, is not rational. Using either deductive or inductive reasoning can be considered as being logical, but one would have to be rational to know when to use which, and why, that is, to choose a purpose or basis for the decision.

A computer doesn't use any reasoning at all. It just does what it does, without any consciousness of what it does. Likewise - a rock. However, consciousness will perceive everything to be a logical operation, whether it is a computer executing an algorithm, or a rock falling down a cliff.