GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla Shen wrote:Incompatible? They are two completely different things.

Hmm, let's see what dictionary.com has to say about paradox shall we?

dictionary.com wrote:a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Not so completely different after all, huh?

Leyla Shen wrote:Jeeez, Laird. Must everything be so complicated?!

Heavens above, Leyla. Must I be forced to defend every minor utterance that I make?

Leyla Shen wrote:PPS: I have a question for you. What is the difference between these ideas, 1) it's true that paradox is paradox, 2) it's paradoxical that paradox is paradox, 3) it's paradoxical that truth is truth, and 4) it's true that truth is truth. (I could get a few more out of it, too!)

In fact you could get four more out of it, but you needn't bother, because I have a question in return for you. What is the difference between these sentences, 1) I have no idea what your point is, 2) your idea seems to be that I have no idea, 3) your point is, as far as I can tell, pointless. (I could get one more out of it, but it would be too cruel)

Laird wrote:defn. paradox a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Not so completely different after all, huh?

defn. truth a fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth"; "the truth is that he didn't want to do it"

Yes. They are completely different, even by the dictionary’s standards.

You don’t see a difference between a self-contradictory or absurd statement or proposition which “in reality expresses a possible truth” and the very thing that it's possibly expressing?

Laird wrote:Heavens above, Leyla. Must I be forced to defend every minor utterance that I make?

This is a philosophy forum. I think Kevin is right to direct you to Worldly Matters for “every minor utterance” you make.

My point is very clear: truth and paradox are two different things. Philosophically (as opposed to therapeutically), this does not need to involve an exposition of your personal life!

Laird wrote:In fact you could get four more out of it, but you needn't bother, because I have a question in return for you. What is the difference between these sentences, 1) I have no idea what your point is, 2) your idea seems to be that I have no idea, 3) your point is, as far as I can tell, pointless. (I could get one more out of it, but it would be too cruel)

Yes, Laird, I know you are sensitive. But I really think we should deal with the truth-paradox question, first -- you'll just have to keep looking if you want to see my point.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Give me 24 hours and I'll give you a decent list of some things that are feminine and good.

First let me point out a few reasons why it is necessary to embrace the feminine as well as the masculine: Even in a fully conscious individual, not all parts of the brain are awake at all times. The brain is not designed to function like that. When too many parts of the brain are awake at once, the circuits overload and proper function becomes impossible. Optimally, only one function of the brain should be at full consciousness at one time, but in order to by fully conscious, one ought to use the other parts of the brain as well in the capacity that they are designed to be able to handle. For example, when one is driving, one's main consciousness should be on precisely where one is maneuvering the vehicle. Simultaneously however, one should also have an openness of awareness to all that is going on around you - like whether the driver pulling up to the road is looking at you or seems absent enough that he might pull out in front of you, or whether there is a child on the side of the road, and if that child is paying attention to his environment or so focused on trying to catch a ball being thrown to him that he might run out in front of your car. These are things that should be in our field of awareness, but not in our focus. If we are focusing on the kid's game of catch rather than where we are going, we could drive off the road. Without this feminine multi-tasking ability, we could not be safe drivers. Although the multitasking does not manifest in as much consciousness of the things one is aware of as the focus present in the prime directive, it is still necessary for full consciousness.

The driving of a car is an obvious example, but there are many aspects of life where such employment of the feminine side in all of us can result in a fuller, more conscious life. Use of aromas, colors, and artful arrangements to influence the reactions of the body is an example of employing femininity to an end that could be good - but it is the selection of why to use aromas and if aromas are the most effective means of achieving the ends that is the conscious aspect of it. If one has a group of disgruntled unconscious individuals, and one brings them into a peaceful appearing and smelling setting, the anger will be quelled some by the setting, which will allow people to access the prefrontal cortex (the reasoning center of the human brain). Even using aromas, colors, and arrangements in one's own environment as an influence on one's self can be beneficial. If one consciously controls the less conscious parts of one's brain by feeding it colors, smells, and arrangements that maximize focus and energy, then one can more fully use one's conscious focus on the task that one is trying to focus on. If one squanders part of one's consciousness by blocking out a bad smell or some kind of eyesore, then that is that amount of consciousness that is not being applied to the task at hand. To the opposite end, if one's less conscious portions of one's brain are being led to be supportive of the part of the brain that is utilizing focus, then those less conscious parts of the brain act like rocket boosters to the pure focus.

Truly it is striking the right balance of the masculine and the feminine that leads one to the transcendent state. A brief list of some of the things that are feminine and good if used for good and conscious purposes includes pleasing scents, pleasing lights, art, love, happiness, nurturence, good-tasting nutritious food... Pleasure is good if used and not abused, if incorporated judiciously, and if it takes its appropriate place at appropriate times in appropriate amounts only. Femininity is an ingredient, as is masculinity. Both are good in balance; both have the potential to be bad if taken out of balance.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I'll give you a decent list of some things that are feminine and good. First let me point out a few reasons why it is necessary to embrace the feminine as well as the masculine:

[1st reason]

Even in a fully conscious individual, not all parts of the brain are awake at all times.
[snip]
Without this feminine multi-tasking ability, we could not be safe drivers. Although the multitasking does not manifest in as much consciousness of the things one is aware of as the focus present in the prime directive, it is still necessary for full consciousness.

Are you saying that a fully conscious individual is not capable of multi-tasking ? It sounds as if multi-tasking is something you believe occurs outside consciousness.

[2nd reason]

The driving of a car is an obvious example, but there are many aspects of life where such employment of the feminine side in all of us can result in a fuller, more conscious life. Use of aromas, colors, and artful arrangements to influence the reactions of the body is an example of employing femininity to an end that could be good - but it is the selection of why to use aromas and if aromas are the most effective means of achieving the ends that is the conscious aspect of it. If one has a group of disgruntled unconscious individuals, and one brings them into a peaceful appearing and smelling setting, the anger will be quelled some by the setting, which will allow people to access the prefrontal cortex (the reasoning center of the human brain). Even using aromas, colors, and arrangements in one's own environment as an influence on one's self can be beneficial. If one consciously controls the less conscious parts of one's brain by feeding it colors, smells, and arrangements that maximize focus and energy, then one can more fully use one's conscious focus on the task that one is trying to focus on. If one squanders part of one's consciousness by blocking out a bad smell or some kind of eyesore, then that is that amount of consciousness that is not being applied to the task at hand. To the opposite end, if one's less conscious portions of one's brain are being led to be supportive of the part of the brain that is utilizing focus, then those less conscious parts of the brain act like rocket boosters to the pure focus.

I think you are saying that things that seem to be degrading consciousness, or, undesireable things, are what prevent people from becoming fully conscious. I agree with both notions, with qualifications.

For instance, poor health seems to degrade consciousness, since death and unconsciousness seem to arise together. While a fully conscious individual is unlikely to be dead, the opposite (excellent health) does not equal full consciousness.

Undesireable things can be dealt with, temporarily, by distracting the mind from habits of repulsion and need. But the "distracting" shouldn't be done for pure emotional gratification, as you suggest. All along, the aim ought to be, to let the agitation of the ego chew on something it likes, so it doesn't make so much of a fuss, in order to provide intellectual space in the mind to clarify the ultimate causes of the agitation.

So both of these notions are contextualised in logic and purposefulness, which, for the purpose of this discussion, are masculine traits.

[3rd reason]
Truly it is striking the right balance of the masculine and the feminine that leads one to the transcendent state. A brief list of some of the things that are feminine and good if used for good and conscious purposes includes pleasing scents, pleasing lights, art, love, happiness, nurturence, good-tasting nutritious food... Pleasure is good if used and not abused, if incorporated judiciously, and if it takes its appropriate place at appropriate times in appropriate amounts only. Femininity is an ingredient, as is masculinity. Both are good in balance; both have the potential to be bad if taken out of balance.

No, there can be no balance. The problem is that femininity, if defined as those things, is far less efficient at "leading one to the transcendant state" (by which you mean highly logical thinking, I hope ?) than masculinity, if defined as things like reasoning, determination, courage, imagination, creativity, humour, truthfulness, uncompromising aspiration, and commitment.

In fact, those things you mention as feminine are what pleases the ego most: sensation, comfort, security, greener pastures......

-

Kelly Jones wrote:Are you saying that a fully conscious individual is not capable of multi-tasking ?

That is not what I am saying. A task does not necessarily require full consciousness. A fully conscious person is aware of how much consciousness is required for various kinds of tasks, and can assign tasks to levels of consciousness sufficient to accomplish the task.

A simple robot can accomplish a task without consciousness, and likewise many humans accomplish many tasks without much, if any consciousness. A conscious person could set a non-conscious endeavor in motion, and allow the momentum to carry on the action while paying no further attention to it. Much like one's heart beats without any conscious effort even if one is engaging one's full level of consciousness in some philosophic pursuit, a conscious individual can multi-task many unconscious endeavors while engaging full consciousness in something else - but one can only engage one's full consciousness in a single thing at a time.

Elizabeth,

Your definition of consciousness is actually highly feminine (sensation-based), because it measures consciousness based on the number of events that are being experienced, rather than the quality, or the logicality, of those experiences. Inevitably, your conclusion is that femininity is "good for consciousness".

Your version of a highly conscious individual is based on awareness of the many different bodily processes which are typically named as subconscious processes, like digestion, breathing, pumping blood. Like a tallying machine, rather than a reasoning machine. The problem with this version is that the only awareness we have of these processes occurs through consciousness --- so they could very well not exist at all, or be totally different, depending on the construction that our conscious mind creates. Not only could the number of subconscious processes be far greater than we're aware of, but they can change. So that way of measuring consciousness is unreliable, because it's wholly relative. It's wholly dependent on whatever is appearing to the individual. Thus, your individual is highly conscious so long as it has lots of things happening. The busier the mind, the more conscious, would you say?

My version of a highly conscious individual is based on the quality of awareness of whatever appears. It's not particular things, or quantity of things, but how things are conceived of. It interprets whatever appears, logically, in relation to the Absolute. It sees absolute relationships, rather than relative ones. It views the world as decentralised, instead of in relation to a self in relation to an infinitely changing external environment. So, it's not a top-down, controller, tallying mind, but a reasoning, relating, mind. Merely the quality of thoughts.

-

Leyla Shen wrote:You don’t see a difference between a self-contradictory or absurd statement or proposition which “in reality expresses a possible truth” and the very thing that it's possibly expressing?

We're really quibbling over details now. But OK: I don't see a difference. There's the paradox, and then there's the possibility that the paradox, despite seeming absurd or self-contradictory, is true.

Here, perhaps we can agree on this. If we draw two intersecting circles, one being the set of all truths and the other being the set of all paradoxes, then the intersection of the circles is that set of paradoxes that are also true.

Leyla Shen wrote:Philosophically (as opposed to therapeutically), this does not need to involve an exposition of your personal life!

Well that's a relief (although I must admit to a narcissistic side that would love to bare all).

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, Laird, I know you are sensitive.

No points for that observation unfortunately - I told you myself.

Laird wrote:We're really quibbling over details now.

[laughs!]

Oh, is that all--quibbling over those pesky little details, eh?

Laird wrote:But OK: I don't see a difference.

That’s because you’ve flippen-well changed the definition. Look:

1st defn. paradox a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

2nd defn. There's the paradox (<and that is totally flippen meaningless since you've not defined it coherently!), and then there's the possibility that the paradox, despite seeming absurd or self-contradictory, is true. Translation: A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that is true.

But! Now that we’ve found your actual definition of paradox, you’re not allowed to change it until this discussion concludes. Everything time you use the word “paradox” you must mean precisely the meaning in the 2nd definition. If you are going to alter it in any way, you must do so outside of the term “paradox.” Accordingly...

Laird wrote:Here, perhaps we can agree on this. If we draw two intersecting circles, one being the set of all truths and the other being the set of all paradoxes, then the intersection of the circles is that set of paradoxes that are also true.

...give me an example of a paradox from the set of paradoxes at the intersection of these circles, please.

Leyla Shen wrote:That’s because you’ve flippen-well changed the definition. Look:

1st defn. paradox a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

2nd defn. There's the paradox (<and that is totally flippen meaningless since you've not defined it coherently!), and then there's the possibility that the paradox, despite seeming absurd or self-contradictory, is true. Translation: A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that is true.

The second "definition" is not new at all though - it relies on the first definition! The "flippen meaningless"ness is due to you not realising that I expected you to use the first definition to base the second assertion on. By the way, your translation is inaccurate - the bolded "is" should be "might be".

Leyla Shen wrote:But! Now that we’ve found your actual definition of paradox, you’re not allowed to change it until this discussion concludes.

Everybody hide under your desks, a dictatorship has been assumed - no changing your opinions now! What thou art shalt thy be evermore.

Leyla Shen wrote:...give me an example of a paradox from the set of paradoxes at the intersection of these circles, please.

"Sometimes the best way to love someone is to stop loving em". Absurd because if you stop loving someone, then you're no longer loving em, so it seemingly can't be a way of loving em, let alone the "best way". Truthful because sometimes relationships get to a point where no matter what you do, you cause pain, and to stop causing pain and "truly" love that person, it's necessary to leave em alone completely - despite not loving em, you are being as loving as you can towards em (yes, I've adopted the Spivak way - the more that I think about it the more that I like it).

(Allah, give me strength!)

Morpheus wrote:The Matrix is a system, Leyla. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, Lairds. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Of course, a more substantial and direct reply will follow when I return from a previously arranged engagement.

Kelly Jones wrote:So both of these notions are contextualised in logic and purposefulness, which, for the purpose of this discussion, are masculine traits.

Masculine traits huh, interesting.

No, there can be no balance. The problem is that femininity, if defined as those things, is far less efficient at "leading one to the transcendant state" (by which you mean highly logical thinking, I hope ?) than masculinity, if defined as things like reasoning, determination, courage, imagination, creativity, humour, truthfulness, uncompromising aspiration, and commitment.

In fact, those things you mention as feminine are what pleases the ego most: sensation, comfort, security, greener pastures.....

I have to admit Kelly, your honesty is highly appreciated.

Leyla Shen wrote:That’s because you’ve flippen-well changed the definition. Look:

1st defn. paradox a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

2nd defn. There's the paradox (<and that is totally flippen meaningless since you've not defined it coherently!), and then there's the possibility that the paradox, despite seeming absurd or self-contradictory, is true. Translation: A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that is true.

Laird replied: The second "definition" is not new at all though - it relies on the first definition! The "flippen meaningless"ness is due to you not realising that I expected you to use the first definition to base the second assertion on. By the way, your translation is inaccurate - the bolded "is" should be "might be".

Damn. Silly me.

Hang on:

Laird wrote:Here, perhaps we can agree on this. If we draw two intersecting circles, one being the set of all truths and the other being the set of all paradoxes, then the intersection of the circles is that set of paradoxes that ARE also true.

~

Leyla wrote:But! Now that we’ve found your actual definition of paradox, you’re not allowed to change it until this discussion concludes.

Laird wrote:Everybody hide under your desks,...

To what are you trying to appeal, Laird?

Laird wrote:...a dictatorship has been assumed - no changing your opinions now!

Nice and emotive. If you want a meaningful discussion, it’s useful not to change the meanings of words without letting the person you are having the discussion with know. What’s unreasonable about that? Or are you conceding somewhat?

Laird wrote:What thou art shalt thy be evermore.

Yes. I’m a little worried about you!

I will address your example later.

Kelly Jones wrote:The busier the mind, the more conscious, would you say?

No, that isn't what I meant either. Although a highly conscious individual would be capable of multitasking (which was the response to your previous question) that does not mean that they must be doing everything they can possibly do at all times. A highly conscious person would gauge how much should or needs to be done at once in a particular situation, and will be able to do more or less as is optimal for the situation. Capability does not equate to mandation.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Although a highly conscious individual would be capable of multitasking, that does not mean that they must be doing everything they can possibly do at all times.

If multitasking is being conscious of many simultaneous processes, then that is the same as "using all senses", is it not?

So, that would seem to be "busy busy".

A highly conscious person would gauge how much should or needs to be done at once in a particular situation,

I would say, instead, the conscious individual does what is most likely to be effective. Not a matter of how much, but how.

and will be able to do more or less as is optimal for the situation. Capability does not equate to mandation.

Being highly conscious means behaving optimally. One cannot do any better, because there's a great deal of luck left over when reasoning and experience have played their role.


-

Kelly Jones wrote:If multitasking is being conscious of many simultaneous processes, then that is the same as "using all senses", is it not?

Well, actually it is still only being really conscious of one thing - but also semi-conscious of other things.

Kelly Jones wrote:So, that would seem to be "busy busy".

Sometimes "busy busy" is necessary, but most of the time it is not. It is important to distinguish between times that it is necessary and times that it is not, because if one is busy busy all the time, one would wear one's self out, and eventually become less effective due to exhaustion.

Kelly Jones wrote:I would say, instead, the conscious individual does what is most likely to be effective. Not a matter of how much, but how.

That is a fair statement. It is always better to get more accomplished by being more efficient than more busy. It is only sometimes that one must be both busy and efficient.

Kelly Jones wrote:Being highly conscious means behaving optimally. One cannot do any better, because there's a great deal of luck left over when reasoning and experience have played their role.

I wouldn't call it a great deal of luck for the highly conscious. In fact, I would say that the more conscious a person is, the less that is left to chance. There will always be an element of the uncontrollable, but the more conscious one is of the nature of causality, the better one can consciously play a role to cause optimal effects.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: K: If multitasking is being conscious of many simultaneous processes, then that is the same as "using all senses", is it not?

E: Well, actually it is still only being really conscious of one thing - but also semi-conscious of other things.

There is no such thing as multi-tasking, because there's only one consciousness. There are not many simultaneous streams or levels of consciousness. What multi-tasking really is, is one process that integrates different events. The more conscious a person is, the more they can consciously relate these events.

A combat between two agents fighting for resources, is really one state of relative competitiveness.

Kelly Jones wrote: K: So, that would seem to be "busy busy".

E: Sometimes "busy busy" is necessary, but most of the time it is not. It is important to distinguish between times that it is necessary and times that it is not, because if one is busy busy all the time, one would wear one's self out, and eventually become less effective due to exhaustion.

Rather than think in terms of quantity, and amounts, try to focus on quality of thought. Clarify one thought, make sure it is perfectly logical.

Kelly Jones wrote: K: I would say, instead, the conscious individual does what is most likely to be effective. Not a matter of how much, but how.

E: That is a fair statement. It is always better to get more accomplished by being more efficient than more busy. It is only sometimes that one must be both busy and efficient.

There is absolutely no point in being busy. That makes mess. Just focus on the one thought, "amplify" it, so that it is all you can experience. Make it perfect, true, logical.

Kelly Jones wrote: K: Being highly conscious means behaving optimally. One cannot do any better, because there's a great deal of luck left over when reasoning and experience have played their role.

E: I wouldn't call it a great deal of luck for the highly conscious. In fact, I would say that the more conscious a person is, the less that is left to chance. There will always be an element of the uncontrollable, but the more conscious one is of the nature of causality, the better one can consciously play a role to cause optimal effects.

Try to clarify your idea completely. Make it completely coherent, if you can, before you type it.


-

OK. Firstly, for the purposes of firm orientation, I asked you for an example of a statement and/or proposition which is both absurd or self-contradictory, and true (an example of paradox existing at the intersection of paradox and truth). You provided me with this:

Laird wrote:"Sometimes the best way to love someone is to stop loving em". Absurd because if you stop loving someone, then you're no longer loving em, so it seemingly can't be a way of loving em, let alone the "best way".

No, not “seemingly” -- it is definitely absurd, by definition. Obviously, you don’t have those so anything goes.

Laird wrote:Truthful because sometimes relationships get to a point where no matter what you do, you cause pain, and to stop causing pain and "truly" love that person, it's necessary to leave em alone completely...

Hm. So here, “truly” loving involves leaving the person, so what loving was it before you left?

Laird wrote: - despite not loving em, you are being as loving as you can towards em

And now we come in with the “as loving as you can,” which, in context (since you’ve provided nothing by way of specific definition), equates to not loving "em" but “truly” loving towards "em".

Right. Must make perfect sense to a subaltern, who should accordingly be abandoned forthwith.

(I’m sorry Laird, but I think you will find what follows much less than pleasant.)

What utter rubbish -- seriously. What the hell are you talking about? I honestly can’t believe someone would say such a thing, Laird, let alone entertain it with more than a single moment’s serious attention. I had quite a time with myself over this! This kind of "thinking", I think, has been my greatest obstacle; that such are the depths of meaninglessness to which one must plummet in order to salvage any semblance of sanity! That people around me are not actually joking, and [edit to insert the following crucial word] hoping soon someone's going to walk up to me and say, "Smile, you're on Candid Camera!"

Laird wrote:(yes, I've adopted the Spivak way - the more that I think about it the more that I like it).

The best thing you can give a subaltern (if I've got the right Spivak) is a basic, logical and rationally defined vocabulary (which definitely does not involve “ee”s and “er”s, “em”s and “ar”s), accurate and relevant historical and etymological context and a system of self-education (thinking, in other words). Given appropriate physical capability and sufficient resources for basic physical needs, what more does one need to speak? On what grounds do you apparently take it upon yourself to represent them?

Laird believes: Sometimes the best way to love someone is to stop loving them.

If love is behaving with the greatest possible awareness of a person --- their causes, their needs, what makes them unique --- then it certainly wouldn't be loving to cease being loving. Ever.

It just comes down to definitions.

The above-described love is ruthless consciousness.

-

Leyla Shen wrote:Laird: By the way, your translation is inaccurate - the bolded "is" should be "might be".

Damn. Silly me.

Hang on:

Laird wrote:Here, perhaps we can agree on this. If we draw two intersecting circles, one being the set of all truths and the other being the set of all paradoxes, then the intersection of the circles is that set of paradoxes that ARE also true. [bolding and capitalisation Leyla's]

Your emphasis is deceptive - that part of the description is referring to the intersection of paradox and truth, but by the above description, there are also paradoxes that do *not* lie in the intersection with truth, hence for an anonymously selected paradox we can only say that it *might be* true.

Laird: Everybody hide under your desks,...

Leyla: To what are you trying to appeal, Laird?

Your sense of exaggerated ridiculousness. But please try to see the playful and teasing side, because I wouldn't want you to be hurt or offended.

Laird: ...a dictatorship has been assumed - no changing your opinions now!

Leyla: Nice and emotive. If you want a meaningful discussion, it’s useful not to change the meanings of words without letting the person you are having the discussion with know. What’s unreasonable about that?

It's very reasonable, and I would have let you know if that's what I'd done.

Leyla wrote:Or are you conceding somewhat?

I concede only that you've as yet forced no concessions upon me, and that's not much of a concession.

Laird: What thou art shalt thy be evermore.

Leyla: Yes. I’m a little worried about you!

Aw, you care enough to worry about me - I'm touched. :-)

Leyla Shen wrote:OK. Firstly, for the purposes of firm orientation, I asked you for an example of a statement and/or proposition which is both absurd or self-contradictory, and true (an example of paradox existing at the intersection of paradox and truth). You provided me with this:

Laird wrote:"Sometimes the best way to love someone is to stop loving em". Absurd because if you stop loving someone, then you're no longer loving em, so it seemingly can't be a way of loving em, let alone the "best way".

No, not “seemingly” -- it is definitely absurd, by definition.

I explained below how it could be seen as truthful, so the absurdity, (still) in my opinion, is only a seemingness. I will try to expand my explanation into something that's acceptable to you though.

Leyla Shen wrote:Obviously, you don’t have those so anything goes.

I give you a dictionary definition, elaborate on it and then provide a symbolic representation in terms of a Venn diagram, and it's still not enough for you... what, do you think that they're contradictory? If so, you haven't shown me how. It all makes sense to me.

Laird: Truthful because sometimes relationships get to a point where no matter what you do, you cause pain, and to stop causing pain and "truly" love that person, it's necessary to leave em alone completely...

Leyla: Hm. So here, “truly” loving involves leaving the person, so what loving was it before you left?

It was attempts at loving that to other people would have been interpreted as loving, but that for whatever reason are only causing pain to this person. For example, paying that person a compliment will only raise a suspicion in that person's mind that you have an ulterior motive.

Laird: - despite not loving em, you are being as loving as you can towards em

Leyla: And now we come in with the “as loving as you can,” which, in context (since you’ve provided nothing by way of specific definition), equates to not loving "em" but “truly” loving towards "em".

Right, it means not actively loving em, which is nevertheless the best way that you can love em (by leaving em alone completely) because active loving only backfires.

Leyla Shen wrote:Right. Must make perfect sense to a subaltern, who should accordingly be abandoned forthwith.

Et tu, Leyla? I expect that kind of patronising attitude from the three sages, who after all have a vested interest in maintaining a sense of superiority over the thoughts of others. Several other people on this forum have adopted the same "if you don't think like me then you don't think at all" attitude. I honestly thought that you were above such condescension. It's disappointing to see that you're not.

Leyla Shen wrote:(I’m sorry Laird, but I think you will find what follows much less than pleasant.)

Again, it's more disappointing than unpleasant. We've been engaging each other as relative equals to date and I've been perfectly capable of dealing with your (frequent - perhaps unusually so) criticisms, but all of a sudden you feel a need to assert that my thinking is "rubbish" and to demean me as a novice.

You seem to want a black and white world - perfectly defined terms that don't change based on context; timeless truths that don't change. I like to see shades of grey, and, dare I hope, flashes of brilliant colour.

Leyla wrote:Given appropriate physical capability and sufficient resources for basic physical needs, what more does one need to speak?

Do you really not see the awkwardness that exists in our language that it's impossible to refer to an anonymous, gender-unknown person without a phrase like "him or her"? What do you find objectionable about attempting to find an elegant solution to this problem? In particular, what do you find objectionable about the Spivak solution, which uses the plural forms but drops the initial "th" of those forms? It seems very workable to me, but if you have a better suggestion, then please go ahead and make it.

Leyla wrote:On what grounds do you apparently take it upon yourself to represent them?

I don't understand your question. Whom do you think that I'm taking it upon myself to represent?

Several other people on this forum have adopted the same "if you don't think like me then you don't think at all" attitude. I honestly thought that you were above such condescension. It's disappointing to see that you're not.

What a condescending statement.

-

Kelly (from another thread)

I can't recall Jim, your response to my explanation of the difference between willing and willingness.

Well I did have an attempt to reply to the willing/willingness post, but didn't get anywhere. I also had some reticence about what I originally said.

It amounts to, what you see as masculinity, I see as femininity (aggressiveness and hot-temperedness).
Is this not an adequate response?

Well it all depends on where in the circle of plausible attributes one decides to place their perspective in regard to the cognitive generalisation of the term masculinity. You have formed an positive attachment to the QRS version of the term, whereas I have formed a negative attachment to their definition. I reject it because it is not a balanced reflection of reality. The properties they ascribe to it, as shown by the way they use the term, are all positive, completely ignoring the negative.

Lol, guess what the ultimate definition of masculinity is!

Expansion.

In an imaginary circle representing all human attributes, draw a vertical line down the centre and a horizontal line through the centre. The top left hand quadrant represents positive masculine attributes and the right hand quadrant negative traits, the bottom half represents all traits to which feminine definitions could be ascribed to in their respective positive and negative quadrants. The diagram now is top left masculine-positive, top right masculine negative, bottom left feminine-positive and bottom left feminine-negative.

Your total value-definition of masculinity would be placed somewhere in the top left near the rim and your total value-definition of femininity would be in the opposite quadrant. Draw a line between the two points.

What you and the QRS have done here is skew the definition to one side, based on your value systems.

You might suggest that the combination of all plausible human attributes to which masculinity and femininity could be attached to, are not equal in total effect, so it would be unreasonable to dissect the circle between positive and negative, into equal halves, as masculine traits appear more valuable to most individuals here - but you would be wrong.

The universe is an almost zero-sum game. Everything is ultimately dualistic. To the totality, causes act in an equal and opposite manner. Masculine and feminine in their broadest possible definition refer to opposite actions of the universe, they are the opposite ways in which causes reveal themselves. Masculine is activity in an expansionary sense (the action starts from within and flows outward) and feminine is activity in an contractionary sense (the action starts from out and flows inward). The interaction of these two absolutes are the process of cause and effect.

In the circle of human attributes the ultimate definition of masculinity could be represented by placing an "aura" of arrows pointing out from the centre of the circle, and femininity by placing arrows pointing to the centre. Only in this way could one represent the duality involved in all human attributes. In terms of one's value system, then on each individual attribute, they should try and position themselves somewhere on or nearby the lines previously drawn. For each positive masculine action, there will be negative aspects to take into account, but so to will be the case for feminine actions (which too many intrinsically feminine folks ignore).

Now all the above just relates to the skewing of the definition of the sex terms. It doesn’t fully apply to an individual. All things at times have an imbalance between masculine action and feminine action. A child, a star, all things, may only grow if they have a greater degree of masculinity than the things that surround them.

I'm not for a second suggesting that one can achieve a knowledge of reality without strong masculine drives. It seems to be essential. However, I am suggesting that these drives must settle by combining them with feminine attributes, otherwise the masculinity will always cause striving, which will cause suffering. One must reform a balance, otherwise one can become a bad philosopher like virtually all those most respected by the QRS - and they are bad only because they take masculinity to extremes, and then expect this extreme level to be sustainable. It isn’t in my book, and unless one has an ego whose main goal is to become some sort of "hero", extreme masculine one-sidedness seems detrimental, over the long term.

Can you see how the QRS have settled into passitivity, a feminine trait, but the thing to note is that they have settled into this at a higher level because they have used masculinity to build their mind.

Very good post James (although I would have preferred had you put the positive characteristics of both genders in the upper half of the circle and the negative in the lower, rather than putting females below the males).

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the QRS settling into passivity, though. David is still expanding by coming up with The Reasoning Show and putting so much effort into both hosting and producing it (and few here have any idea how much effort has to go into the behind-the-scenes production aspect). Dan recently went on an ill-fated crusade over at the Dawkins site. Kevin does nearly invisible behind the scenes stuff to keep the forum operational, recruited Laird, is helpful to various people as needs arise and are meetable by him, and I'm not really sure what else as he keeps his activities generally private. The QRS are still expanding, but they are growing like a tree, not explosively like a mushroom cloud.

Laird wrote:It's very reasonable, and I would have let you know if that's what I'd done.

Well, you would if you could see it, I‘m sure.

Laird wrote:I explained below how it could be seen as truthful, so the absurdity, (still) in my opinion, is only a seemingness. I will try to expand my explanation into something that's acceptable to you though.

Good boy. (Was that loving?)

Laird wrote:It was attempts at loving that to other people would have been interpreted as loving, but that for whatever reason are only causing pain to this person. For example, paying that person a compliment will only raise a suspicion in that person's mind that you have an ulterior motive.

More therapy! So, the ultimate definition of what is and is not loving becomes how “other people” interpret one’s actions?

Leyla Shen wrote:Good boy. (Was that loving?)

Well it gave me the opportunity to exclaim to myself "Holy crap, what a patronising so-and-so" (you'll have to imagine the actual words that I used, because I don't want to repeat them publicly) and that was kind of a buzz, so I guess you got a little lovingness over to me.

Laird: It was attempts at loving that to other people would have been interpreted as loving, but that for whatever reason are only causing pain to this person. For example, paying that person a compliment will only raise a suspicion in that person's mind that you have an ulterior motive.

Leyla: More therapy! So, the ultimate definition of what is and is not loving becomes how “other people” interpret one’s actions?

Layers and shades of grey. Who can say what is ultimate?

Do you again tempt me with ultimate knowledge? You have failed to deliver before...