GENIUS FORUMS

Jamesh wrote:
At present I'm stalking Leah, basically looking for something to find fault with.

Leah: Why??

I'm a stirrer. That's really only why I used the word stalker, to see what your reaction might be.

The "looking for something to find fault with" though is genuine.

When I've read your posts I've mostly been in agreement with you. Perhaps somewhat superficially, more related to your attitude, than all of the content. Some of the content I'd have to think about more, by reviewing, but I haven't done that. I guess I am looking for the boundaries of your emotional wisdom. If I found an inconsistency between what you say, but do, then I will have found a boundary. If I don't find consistency then I’ll have to VALUE you more and actually pay more attention to what you are actually saying. My blatant style is to cut to the chase. Lol, I'm not saying it works, but at least it has the amusement of novelty.

Reading discussion of Plato's [i]Republic. Having awful amounts of trouble getting over all the little errors he ( Plato ) made within the texts. Desperately seeking to discuss these odd features with my lecturers or trash them in essays but you know what university is like: They want to you to do research all the time and not give your own opinions, unless you back these opinions up with research from people who were also too scared to give their own opinions. Which means I must grin and bear it if I want to continue getting good marks. No wonder I get nightmares about me turning into a parrot...[/i]

.

Ryan writes:

Pye, I disagree, it seems to me that most of the individuals in here that discuss the psychology differences between the sexes are not blaming one over the other. For the most part, it is just an honest inquiry.

Ryan, this "honest" inquiry time and again exhibits the bad faith of imputing to the object qualities created for it within the subject. This bad faith will never clear the way for the cuttingest truth for the mind.

Thanks for the link. It is fine with me to speak of male and female conditioning; I have spoken of it here at length myself, for conditioning undermines virtually all by-nature arguments. It pulls the metaphysical grounding out from under such thoughts as males or females are just inherently this or that way; they can't help it; it's in their nature, and the like. No more blueprints for us with metaphysically affixed qualities. It is not the truth.

Condition points to what we are forming of ourselves in our mimetic response to our environment. And this is why some basic knowledge of feral children is paramount to forwarding any ideas about what humans are by nature, for the case of feral children shows us how little we are by nature, how little we come ready-made with, and how profoundly, once here, our direct, immediate environment forms us into what we are. Recognizing and working with conditioning is paramount to the rising mind, or it stays where it's been grinding its wheels for lazy centuries.

We adapt to a world of our own creation. I don't throw my hands up and say well that's just how everything's been made. Instead this gives us knowledge and impetus to create and adapt to greater things -- for born into this Nature alone, we do not speak, love, or reason; we are not at all what we call human. These we teach to each other, with the tortoise speed of evolution, and these things - love, speech, and reason - also did not come from metaphysical blueprints, but from the gestalt of having two-or-more of these creatures, for centuries, roaming together.

Diebert writes:

Then I'm glad you decided to stick around in such immature environment Pye!

Luckily, in linguistics and in life, we have recourse to things like: some, many, probably, most, few, too many, etc. :)

Diebert: Lets just hope it's not due to some mother-complex ;)

Yes, let's. Thusfar, I've not been impatient enough to mother anything.



.

I am about to begin reading Darwin's The Origin of Species to shake things up.

I have a pretty extensive library of philosophy and eastern/western thought. When I decide to take on some light reading I've enjoyed the work of Vonnegut in the past.

Any suggestions for light and 'heavy' reading?

Bryan McGilly wrote:Any suggestions for light and 'heavy' reading?

Here's a good e-book on critical thinking
Psychology of Intelligence Analysis