The Value of Truth + Truth & Gender

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:17 pm

I

think that's kind of a cop-out, trying to put the responsibility on men. Do men try to excel in sports, or business, or whatever, just to impress women? No, they like to compete with each other. It may have something to do with women at some level, but really, they enjoy the competition - they want to be the best at something. They compete even when there are no women around. They like to establish rank, in some sense.

Which is why I prefer the company of men, you always know where you stand, whereas with women, you never know. I didnâ€™t say men were the dishonest ones in this scenario, they just use poor judgment when it comes to females in makeup. I am not quite sure how I put the onus on men.

I think the same is true of women: they mainly dress up to impress other women. That men find it attractive is only sometimes the point. It has more to do with status, I think.

I disagree. This is even true for unattractive women. For instance, I worked with this extremely overweight and very unattractive female attorney, she was the power broker on the team. Our team consisted of her, me and several guys. She would have rather seen me dead as to look at me while she cavorted with her â€œhoneyâ€™sâ€. It was disgusting. And, what was even more disgusting was that one of the guys flirted with her just to suck up.

A taste of sweet Truth is addictive, and makes the bitterness of lies unpalatable. If everyone who thinks they see a piece of UR shares it with others, we can examine it closely enough to shatter any illusions and share True pieces. By sharing a taste of Truth rather than luring with deceipt, we can rouse people from their drunken stupor. Handing them another drink of falseness just sends most staggering on their way.

But only if they want to taste the Truth. If they are not ready for it, sharing it with them will roll off the top. The most common phenomenon of this type is despising a trait in another which is just a mirrored reflection of yourself. It is funny how being an objective observer, one can see this mirror, and yet, if you make the remark to one or the other, they would become insulted. People most likely donâ€™t appreciate the truth. So, it would seem what Trevor speaks of is figuring out a trick to enable them to see themselves as being those very traits they despise in another, in order for them to recognize that trait within them to change for the better. Saving face is what some call it. Is it wrong?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:06 pm

passthrough wrote:The most common phenomenon of this type is despising a trait in another which is just a mirrored reflection of yourself. It is funny how being an objective observer, one can see this mirror, and yet, if you make the remark to one or the other, they would become insulted. People most likely donâ€™t appreciate the truth. So, it would seem what Trevor speaks of is figuring out a trick to enable them to see themselves as being those very traits they despise in another, in order for them to recognize that trait within them to change for the better. Saving face is what some call it. Is it wrong?

Not often do people recognize that it is a reflection of a trait in themselves that they despise. Usually, they just despise it in the other person, and will jovially sit back and point their finger at others. If, however, it is the trait itself that is focused on - then that automatically detaches it for those who have not yet learned detachment. They can then look at the trait itself objectively and come to a decision about its implementation. This still allows a buffer of denial for those who can not yet handle the truth, without throwing a delusion into the mixture.

As far as "saving face" there is a difference between reframing something and misrepresenting something.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:58 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:As far as "saving face" there is a difference between reframing something and misrepresenting something.

I guess I need a real life example of how one could manipulate by lying in order to move someone toward enlightenment. I have been thinking and thinking of a counter, and you just won that argument.

Which is why I prefer the company of men, you always know where you stand, whereas with women, you never know.

And, what was even more disgusting was that one of the guys flirted with her just to suck up.

I realize this could also seem a contradiction, but it is not. The suck up guy had a big ego problem and didn't like me anymore than she did. But I knew it, with women they hide and play games. I guess that's why they got along so well. Anyhow, he submitted a report that I was supposed to have seen and insured the facts were correct. The report was sent with errors. I was immediately blamed by her, which brought in my supervisor. The problem was I never saw the report, so when the truth came out, egg was on both.

Here is a case where manipulation and lying were involved and the truth came to light, and by the person doing the manipulation and lying. But I'm not sure this is an example of what Trevor meant.

I don't hate women, I just don't understand them at all. However, I have found that once you do understand a woman, learn her weakness, avoid it like the plague, you will have a friend for life. But the problem is, none of us should avoid the weaknesses, but help each other overcome them...so this is just the coward's way out.

Elizabeth, I did find the sweet taste of truth to work in a situation with my current supervisor [different team from above], a female, although I shared it with my peer, her best friend, with whom I was more comfortable sharing. My supervisor was afraid I was after her job because I had more education and experience. The fact is, I wouldn't want her job if they handed it to me. Managing people...I don't think so. Once I told her friend this truth, my supervisor changed completely. I will add, this was an unusual situation. With most women, I don't get that easy of an out.

So, given this scenario, was there a way to manipulate the situation with a lie in order to have the same effect?

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:18 am

You like hanging around with men?

Is this how they speak?

In your lengthy dialogues with Elizabeth, do you "know where you stand"?

.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:35 am

Leyla Shen wrote:You like hanging around with men?

Is this how they speak?

In your lengthy dialogues with Elizabeth, do you "know where you stand"?

.

I don't "hang" around with men. I work in a very male oriented profession. Surprisingly, when men are not threatened by you, yes, they do talk this way, in fact some can get pretty sappy...if that's what you are inferring.

As to Elizabeth, she probably got bored.

Instead of hopping in with derogatory remarks in order to gain points, why don't you reply to what I write. It is much harder to argue a point than to be an objective critic. To argue properly, one must understand the other's point of view, thus the lengthy dialogue. In this medium, it is hard sometimes to get there, even Elizabeth admitted that in either this post or another.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:54 am

passthrough (hm) wrote:

Instead of hopping in with derogatory remarks in order to gain points,â€¦

Points? Where? Is that a standard accusation you make when someone addresses something youâ€™ve said in a manner you assume is inappropriate?

Iâ€™ve seen absolutely no points system here. And, I think Iâ€™d be the last one that could be considered as gaining any! Donâ€™t you?

â€¦why don't you reply to what I write.

I replied to something you wrote. You just didnâ€˜t like it. Iâ€™m not interested in therapy-style dialogue, however.

It is much harder to argue a point than to be an objective critic. To argue properly, one must understand the other's point of view, thus the lengthy dialogue.

This is a philosophy forum. Now, I donâ€™t object to therapy and the general tea-room bantering in its place, necessarily. But, personally, I think you would do yourself and everyone else more of a service if you focussed on editing what you write. Thereâ€™s only so much of oneâ€™s personal life a philosophy forum can take before it becomes something else entirely! Like, a pseudo tea-room. Course, Marsha used to be very good at integrating her life and philosophy. But it's a skill, in my view, that you far from possess.

In this medium, it is hard sometimes to get there, even Elizabeth admitted that in either this post or another.

So? The philosophical--let alone genius--ramifications of this are what, exactly?

~

For the sake of philosophy, I shall repeat a question I asked you somewhere, which I believe remains unanswered: what does your union with God look like, passthrough?

.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:27 am

Leyla Shen wrote: Thereâ€™s only so much of oneâ€™s personal life a philosophy forum can take before it becomes something else entirely!

What is philosophy if it is not taken from and applied to life? Reality consists of lives to quite an extent, and to the extent that it is allowed to drift from the concrete - from "where the rubber meets the road" is the extent that is becomes useless "mental masturbation."

Ultimate Reality is made up of a whole lot of reality Leyla.

_____________________________________________________

Leyla also asked:

For the sake of philosophy, I shall repeat a question I asked you somewhere, which I believe remains unanswered: what does your union with God look like, passthrough?

This is the truth and gender thread Leyla - you must be confused.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:03 pm

EI

This is the truth and gender thread Leyla - you must be confused.

[laughs]

.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:33 am

Kierkegaard: Subject/Object

There are two ways of reflection. For objective reflection, truth becomes an object, and the point is to disregard the knowing subject (the individual). By contrast, in subjective reflection truth becomes personal appropriation, a life, inwardness, and the point is to immerse oneself in this subjectivity.

Now, then, which of the ways is the way of truth that matters for an existing person?

The way of objective reflection turns the individual into something accidental, and thus turns existence into an indifferent, vanishing something. The way of objective truth turns away from the knowing subject. The subject and subjectivity become unimportant, and correspondingly, the truth is a matter of indifference. Objective validity is paramount. Any personal interest is subjectivity. For this reason the objective way is convinced that it possesses a security that the subjective way does not have. It is of the opinion that it avoids the danger that lies in wait for the subjective way, and at its extreme this danger is madness. In its view, a solely subjective definition of truth make lunacy and truth indistinguishable. But by staying objective one avoids becoming a lunatic. However, is not the absence of inwardness also lunacy?

It is true that subjective reflection turns inward, but in this inward deepening there is truth. Lest we forget, the subject, the individual, is an existing self, and existing is a process of becoming. Therefore truth as the identity of thought and being is an illusion of the abstract. The knower is first and foremost an existing person. In other words, thinking and being are not automatically one and the same. If the existing person could actually be outside himself, the truth would then be something concluded for him. However, for the truly existing person, passion, not thought, is existence at its very highest: true knowing pertains essentially to existence, to a life of decision and responsibility.

Only ethical and ethical-religious knowing is essential knowing. Only truth that matters to me, to you, is of significance.

Let me clarify the difference between objective and subjective reflection. True inwardness in an existing subject involves passion, and truth as a paradox corresponds to passion. In forgetting that one is an existing subject, one loses passion, and in turn, truth ceases to be a paradox. If truth is the comprehensible, the knowing subject shifts from being human to being an abstract thinker, and truth becomes an abstract, comprehensible object for his knowing. When the question about truth is asked objectively, what is reflected upon is not the relation but the what of the relation. As long as what one relates oneself to is the truth, the subject is supposedly in the truth. But when the question about truth is asked subjectively, the individualâ€™s relation to the truth is what matters. If only the how (not the what) of this relation is in truth, then the individual is in truth, even if he in this way were to relate himself to untruth.

When approached objectively, the question of truth is only about categories of thought. Approached subjectively, however, truth is about inwardness. At its maximum, the how of inwardness is the passion of the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is the essential truth. Decision exists only in subjectivity. Thus the passion of the infinite, not its content, is the deciding factor, for its content is precisely itself. In this way the subjective how and subjectivity, not the objective what and objectivity, are the truth.

Let us take the knowledge of God as an example. The way of objectivity concerns itself with what is reflected upon, of whether this is the true God. In the way of subjectivity, however, the individual relates to God in such a way that this relation is in truth a God-relation. Now, on which side is the truth? Is it on neither side? Or, better yet, does it lie somewhere in between?Â But how can this be? An existing person cannot be in two places at once. He cannot exist as a subject-object. God is a subject to be related to, not an object to be studied or mediated on. He exists only for subjective inwardness.

The person who chooses the subjective way immediately grasps the difficulty of trying to find God objectively. He understands that to know God means to resort to God, not by virtue of objective deliberation, but by virtue of the infinite passion of inwardness. Whereas objective knowledge goes along leisurely on the long road of deliberation, subjective knowledge considers every delay of decision a deadly peril. Knowing subjectively considers decision so important that it is immediately urgent, as if the delayedÂ opportunity had already passed by unused.

Now, if the problem is to determine where there is more truth, whether on the side of the person who only objectively seeks the true God and the approximating truth of the God idea or on the side of the person who is infinitely concerned that he in truth relate himself to God with the passion of his need, then there can be no doubt about the answer. If someone lives in the midst of Christianity and enters, with knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the trueÂ God, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone lives in an idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his eyes are resting upon the image of an idol â€“ where, then, is there more truth? The one prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol; the other prays in untruth to the true God and is therefore in truth worshipping an idol. The distance between objective reflection and subjectivity is indeed an infinite one.

[edit for [/quote]

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:09 am

Is that a quote, Steven?

.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:31 am

Yeah.

:)

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:54 am

Excellent quote, thank you Steven.

Here, in part, Kierkegaard is discussing the difference between Truth and truth, and trying to make a value judgment. The problem is that truth is part of Truth, but it is not the whole Truth.

Furthermore, here, Kierkegaard is discussing subjective and objective truths as phenomenological experiences. That is the ultimate point for enlightenment, but phenomenological experiences can not be fully communicated, but they may be described, or one may direct another to their own experience.

In this directing of another is where I see differences in values amongst the genders, in general. A female will more likely value true directions in how to get from point A to point B. Men seem to find value in telling each other false directions, thinking it will help them to better be able to think and figure out the Truth for themselves (this may be why many men donâ€™t bother to ask directions). It seems to me to be far more efficient to give true directions and guide each other as we see someone veering off the true path. If someone insists on exploring a rabbit hole, well, that is still Truth, and it is their business â€“ but why send someone down a rabbit hole otherwise?

Kierkegaard: Subject/Object

There are two ways of reflection. For objective reflection, truth becomes an object, and the point is to disregard the knowing subject (the individual). By contrast, in subjective reflection truth becomes personal appropriation, a life, inwardness, and the point is to immerse oneself in this subjectivity.

Now, then, which of the ways is the way of truth that matters for an existing person?

He is trying to force a choice over â€œwhat mattersâ€ as an overall value. Since enlightenment is a phenomenological experience, but only objective truth can be communicated, it is of value to see the difference. That does not make one matter more than the other, it only matters to recognize the truth of what each tool is, and what each is for, to understand Truth for what it is.

The way of objective reflection turns the individual into something accidental, and thus turns existence into an indifferent, vanishing something. The way of objective truth turns away from the knowing subject. The subject and subjectivity become unimportant, and correspondingly, the truth is a matter of indifference. Objective validity is paramount. Any personal interest is subjectivity. For this reason the objective way is convinced that it possesses a security that the subjective way does not have. It is of the opinion that it avoids the danger that lies in wait for the subjective way, and at its extreme this danger is madness. In its view, a solely subjective definition of truth make lunacy and truth indistinguishable. But by staying objective one avoids becoming a lunatic.

And so it should be in communicating truth. Since subjectivity can not be communicated â€“ only a representation of the subjective experience of another â€“ it is important to recognize that the subjective experience of another is not the same as your own subjective experience, and should not be accepted an absorbed as if it were your own.

However, is not the absence of inwardness also lunacy?

Inwardness is a separate step from communication.

It is true that subjective reflection turns inward, but in this inward deepening there is truth. Lest we forget, the subject, the individual, is an existing self, and existing is a process of becoming. Therefore truth as the identity of thought and being is an illusion of the abstract. The knower is first and foremost an existing person. In other words, thinking and being are not automatically one and the same. If the existing person could actually be outside himself, the truth would then be something concluded for him. However, for the truly existing person, passion, not thought, is existence at its very highest: true knowing pertains essentially to existence, to a life of decision and responsibility.

Only ethical and ethical-religious knowing is essential knowing. Only truth that matters to me, to you, is of significance.

This is a good description of the inward journey, but I do not see how intentional falseness from the outer journey could make the inward journey deeper than the truest available outer journey (which may inadvertently contain falseness, but one would still be mindful of that possibility).

Let me clarify the difference between objective and subjective reflection. True inwardness in an existing subject involves passion, and truth as a paradox corresponds to passion. In forgetting that one is an existing subject, one loses passion, and in turn, truth ceases to be a paradox. If truth is the comprehensible, the knowing subject shifts from being human to being an abstract thinker, and truth becomes an abstract, comprehensible object for his knowing. When the question about truth is asked objectively, what is reflected upon is not the relation but the what of the relation. As long as what one relates oneself to is the truth, the subject is supposedly in the truth. But when the question about truth is asked subjectively, the individualâ€™s relation to the truth is what matters. If only the how (not the what) of this relation is in truth, then the individual is in truth, even if he in this way were to relate himself to untruth.

When approached objectively, the question of truth is only about categories of thought. Approached subjectively, however, truth is about inwardness. At its maximum, the how of inwardness is the passion of the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is the essential truth. Decision exists only in subjectivity. Thus the passion of the infinite, not its content, is the deciding factor, for its content is precisely itself. In this way the subjective how and subjectivity, not the objective what and objectivity, are the truth.

Yes, that is Truth.

Let us take the knowledge of God as an example. The way of objectivity concerns itself with what is reflected upon, of whether this is the true God. In the way of subjectivity, however, the individual relates to God in such a way that this relation is in truth a God-relation. Now, on which side is the truth? Is it on neither side? Or, better yet, does it lie somewhere in between? But how can this be? An existing person cannot be in two places at once. He cannot exist as a subject-object. God is a subject to be related to, not an object to be studied or mediated on. He exists only for subjective inwardness.

The person who chooses the subjective way immediately grasps the difficulty of trying to find God objectively. He understands that to know God means to resort to God, not by virtue of objective deliberation, but by virtue of the infinite passion of inwardness. Whereas objective knowledge goes along leisurely on the long road of deliberation, subjective knowledge considers every delay of decision a deadly peril. Knowing subjectively considers decision so important that it is immediately urgent, as if the delayed opportunity had already passed by unused.

Now, if the problem is to determine where there is more truth, whether on the side of the person who only objectively seeks the true God and the approximating truth of the God idea or on the side of the person who is infinitely concerned that he in truth relate himself to God with the passion of his need, then there can be no doubt about the answer. If someone lives in the midst of Christianity and enters, with knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the true God, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone lives in an idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his eyes are resting upon the image of an idol â€“ where, then, is there more truth? The one prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol; the other prays in untruth to the true God and is therefore in truth worshipping an idol. The distance between objective reflection and subjectivity is indeed an infinite one.

In the above example, neither are in the truth.

In response to Kierkegaard's last statement, objectivity is merely that which can be accurately communicated. Subjectivity is the inner experience. The difference is only the difference between the outer world and the inner world. Perhaps that could be thought of as â€œinfiniteâ€ especially since boundaries are only imaginary constructs for convenience. If there are not finite boundaries, then everything is infinite.
.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:06 am

Men seem to find value in telling each other false directions, thinking it will help them to better be able to think and figure out the Truth for themselves (this may be why many men donâ€™t bother to ask directions). It seems to me to be far more efficient to give true directions and guide each other as we see someone veering off the true path.

Can you give an example of spiritual men purposely giving false directions?

He is trying to force a choice over â€œwhat mattersâ€ as an overall value.

What you consider "forcing a choice," I'd argue, is Kierkegaard's positioning of both methods, against one another, to ascertain spiritual truth.

A unique case. Because in order for the reader to appreciate his argument, they must truly (subjectively) devote themselves to it.

Since enlightenment is a phenomenological experience, but only objective truth can be communicated, it is of value to see the difference. That does not make one matter more than the other, it only matters to recognize the truth of what each tool is, and what each is for, to understand Truth for what it is.

Kierkegaard describes the nature of subjectivity and objectivity, to separate within the reader's mind the difference between the two, in hopes of proving his case, for the necessity of the subjective in experiencing Truth.

And so it should be in communicating truth. Since subjectivity can not be communicated â€“ only a representation of the subjective experience of another â€“ it is important to recognize that the subjective experience of another is not the same as your own subjective experience, and should not be accepted an absorbed as if it were your own.

How are you defining subjectivity?

Why can't it be communicated?

In response to Kierkegaard's last statement, objectivity is merely that which can be accurately communicated. Subjectivity is the inner experience. The difference is only the difference between the outer world and the inner world. Perhaps that could be thought of as â€œinfiniteâ€ especially since boundaries are only imaginary constructs for convenience. If there are not finite boundaries, then everything is infinite.

Well, you have a way of reducing the abstract to the concrete.

Kierkegaard is describing the infinite experience of the subjective, contrasted with the finite expression of the objective. The difference is the difference between truth and Truth.

The one worshiping the idol is worshiping in truth - in true subjectivity.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:19 pm

I was reading a little on the Internet about Kierkegaardâ€™s subjective truth in order to gain a better understanding of the excerpt you quoted. One site made the comment that his summation â€œâ€¦amounts to acceptance of something like the slogan, "It doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you're sincere."

So, if the pagan prayed in earnest passion to something he did not know, Kierkegaard would have approved? There is obvious dissention in the slogan, but I can see where Kierkegaard has a point. In Hebrews 8, there is a passage, as follows:

1. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

2. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Paragraph 1 describes the objective truth, whereas paragraph 2 describes the subjective truth corresponding each to Kierkegaardâ€™s argument. So, even though the pagan has nothing to hang his hat on, his heart knows the truth and it is to that he prays.

I have not studied Kierkegaardâ€¦yet, so if Iâ€™m off â€“ feel free to chime in.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:54 pm

SC: Can you give an example of spiritual men purposely giving false directions?

I'll tread carefully on the designation of "spiritual men" as there is a difference between spiritual men and those who may or may not be spiritual who nevertheless consider themselves wise.

I went looking for the exact quote from Kevin and I have not found it yet, but the vocabulary choice about femininity and masculinity was intentionally inflammatory for the purpose of sparking more discussion. David does clarifiy that the concept expressed of woman is also what men are mostly comprised of. In that way, I find David more honest than Kevin, but Kevin's influence on David when David was still quite impressionable left a further mark of misdirection.

Here's a quote from Poison for the Heart that I suspect may be a straw-woman arguement for (as Kevin wrote in Letters Between Enemies) "the purpose of "Poison for the heart" is to trick people into becoming enlightened"

Commitment and marriage

A: When I get married I will be forever faithful to my husband.

B: What if, when you are married, you meet a better man, whom you love even more than your husband? Wouldn't it be terribly unfair to him if you didn't marry him?

A: Well, in that case I would get a divorce - as long as it wasn't just lust.

If indeed that is of straw, it puts out a false statement for the purpose of horrifying men who would believe that women in general are that cold and calculating. Even if it is a true quotation (which in actuality he does not even claim that it is), it is still misdirecting as that is not representative of anything but the most aberrant people.

In Letters Between Enemies, I did find Kevin making the following reference

He that cannot lie, knoweth not what is truth, says Nietzsche.

It seems here there is a value being placed on lies.

Not all men are liars Steven, and for example, I believe that you can see the value of truth and would use truth to exemplify what is valuable. You are above the games, and that is what makes you truly spiritual.

How are you defining subjectivity?

Why can't it be communicated?

Subjectivity is the individual's interpretive experience. It can not be communicated because only the individual can have that individual's experience. The general idea can be described, but the reinterpretation by another individual is that other individual's individual experience, not the experience of the first individual. It is the interpretive aspect that makes it different.

To take it into the physical realm for an analogy, "A pain that can not be bourne for a full minute" may be a burning sensation to one and a sharp sensation to another, as sharpness may be bearable to the first - all as a matter of how the nerves process the pain. The interpretation of unbearable may mean unconciousness to one, and an overwhelming urge to cause it to cease in another. The further communication may be helpful, but that still does not convey whether one can experience more pain than another without losing conciousness - and that simply can not be accuratly measured not communicated; it is simply too subjective. For all of us being One, we are still quite isolated in many ways.

Well, you have a way of reducing the abstract to the concrete.

Thank you. I consider it like transmitting a zip file - an efficient communication device, and full use can be made by unzipping it.

Kierkegaard is describing the infinite experience of the subjective, contrasted with the finite expression of the objective. The difference is the difference between truth and Truth.

Yes, and communication is a finite experience.

The one worshiping the idol is worshiping in truth - in true subjectivity.

That is a literal translation of Kierkegaard's words:

The one prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol;

which is slightly different from what I stated:

neither are in the truth.

The truth being the accurate portion of Truth. The trueness of the prayer is separate from the worshipping experience. If it was only that his eyes were resting on the idol as he intends the prayer for God, being the God that is Ultimate Reality, then any portion of UR would do as none can view all of UR at once. If the worship is of the idol, and it seems that Kierkegaard is referring to the Christian God, since idol worship is against Christianity then under that paradigm the prayer would be for nought.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:55 pm

passthrough wrote:I have not studied Kierkegaardâ€¦yet, so if Iâ€™m off â€“ feel free to chime in.

Kierkegaard was all for Truth, not mere belief.

Understanding of Truth can only be done personally. That is, someone else can't do it for you. It can't be known second-hand, through normal religious faith.

There are some writings of Kierkegaard on David Quinn's site via the link at the top of forum.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:17 pm

Kevin wrote:

passthrough wrote: I have not studied Kierkegaardâ€¦yet, so if Iâ€™m off â€“ feel free to chime in.
Kierkegaard was all for Truth, not mere belief.

Understanding of Truth can only be done personally. That is, someone else can't do it for you. It can't be known second-hand, through normal religious faith.

This explains why women have no potential for spirituality â€“ for the only way they can relate to the world is through other people and things: i.e. â€œsecond-handâ€.

There are some writings of Kierkegaard on David Quinn's site via the link at the top of forum.

". . . she is more sensate than man; for were she more spiritual she could never have her culmination point in another. Spirit is the true independent." - Kierkegaard

-
Sue

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 pm

Steven Coyle wrote:Yeah.

:)

For a moment, I thought it just might have been yours.

It's a great quote. I will catch up on your comments on it soon.

Scared?

:)

.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:42 am

Commitment and marriage

A: When I get married I will be forever faithful to my husband.

B: What if, when you are married, you meet a better man, whom you love even more than your husband? Wouldn't it be terribly unfair to him if you didn't marry him?

A: Well, in that case I would get a divorce - as long as it wasn't just lust.

If indeed that is of straw, it puts out a false statement for the purpose of horrifying men who would believe that women in general are that cold and calculating.

The woman in this case is also extremely fickle, and especially so in matters of the heart - the supposed area of feminine expertise.

I see it as a word to the wise; those still tied to the mystique of marriage.

He that cannot lie, knoweth not what is truth, says Nietzsche.

A lie is also a partial truth.

To lie is to secretly tell the truth to oneself.

(The woman in the above scenario would not have been aware of the difference between a lie and the truth - out of courtesy)

The truth being the accurate portion of Truth. The trueness of the prayer is separate from the worshipping experience. If it was only that his eyes were resting on the idol as he intends the prayer for God, being the God that is Ultimate Reality, then any portion of UR would do as none can view all of UR at once.

We're in agreement.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:14 am

SC: A lie is also a partial truth.

sometimes

To lie is to secretly tell the truth to oneself.

Sometimes, and sometimes people also lie to themselves. This is known as a delusion.

(The woman in the above scenario would not have been aware of the difference between a lie and the truth - out of courtesy)

Steven, I have no idea how you are arriving at that conclusion. Would you please break down your thought process on that for me?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:22 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: This explains why women have no potential for spirituality â€“ for the only way they can relate to the world is through other people and things: i.e. â€œsecond-handâ€.

Are you referring to genetic women, or that confounding vocabulary definition of women that is the characteristic the QRS identified as most easily observed in females, but is also the major component of males?

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:21 am

To lie is to secretly tell the truth to oneself.

Sometimes, and sometimes people also lie to themselves. This is known as a delusion.

In order to lie, one must know the truth.

;)

(The woman in the above scenario would not have been aware of the difference between a lie and the truth - out of courtesy)

Steven, I have no idea how you are arriving at that conclusion. Would you please break down your thought process on that for me?

The source of her contentment, lies in her presumption - the heart of a fickle nature. Assuming that her husband would value her decision, simply because it was not lustful, is the beginning of tragic irony. Nothing about her choice is rational, yet to her, a plea of love, is perfectly justified. Out of courtesy, for her own feelings, she makes no attempt to truthfully examine her own nature, before or after her multiple life-altering decisions. Her sincerity would only showcase the ultimately selfish nature of romantic love.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:29 am

Steven Coyle wrote: The source of her contentment, lies in her presumption - the heart of a fickle nature. By assuming that her husband would value her decision, simply because it was not lustful, is the beginning of a tragic irony. Nothing about her choice is rational, yet to her, a plea of love, is perfectly justified. Her sincerity only showcases the ultimately selfish nature of romantic love.

Indeed her end of the dialogue is so irrational that I saw her as a straw woman, and a heart that fickle is not suited for marriage. I wonder at the intelligence of a man that would not see that in his potential spouse.

Romantic love is selfish on one side but selfless on the other. The selflessness is tied to the delusion of permanence, and often delusions about what the other person is.

If anything, it seems to me that the woman is more likely to stay in a marriage no matter how it goes than the man is. Isn't it more often the woman who believes that he'll stop beating her, stop drinking, or whatever, while she picks up the extra slack - especially if she wants to stay together for the sake of the children. She's likely to most easily put up with absenteeism, and it is almost universally thought amongst women "all men cheat" - in fact all men do not cheat, but most have at least one affair and most women are willing to put up with that (although if she finds out about something that even makes her suspicious, whether he is guilty or not, she'll make him pay for it).

He, on the other hand, is more commonly thought of as the one who leaves her for the younger, prettier woman. Furthermore, if he finds out she cheated, he is more likely to just leave her.

Not all men are the same, and not all women are the same, but men are more likely to consider "the little woman" as a commodity than a person, and she is more likely to think of him as the source of her strength if not her support. At the wedding, they are pronounce man and wife - if he leaves her, he is still a man, but what is she? More often now they are pronounced husband and wife, but the behavior in the marriage is still the same. What she does tends to be for him or for the children, then what is left over goes to an employer. She is a wife, a mother, and an employee, but she is nothing to herself. He, however, tends to be a man first.

Some men marry for love, many marry for love and practicality (and actually people should have theri heads about them should they choose a spouse, as those marriages that are made for love alone and no thought to practicality often burn the love into hatred as life just does not work), but since it became easier for women to get jobs, I believe more men marry for a free housekeeper/cook/regular sex partner than women marry for an income. Some sociologists have theorized that women entering the workforce contributed to the divorce rate in this way, as women realized they don't really need men anymore, and men just want too much in comparison to what they are willing to give back.

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:37 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: If anything, it seems to me that the woman is more likely to stay in a marriage no matter how it goes than the man is.

from this source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv39_12s2.pdf

Wives petitioned for divorce more often than husbands, and were even more apt to do so when children were involved (table 12). Approximately 61 percent of the divorces in 1988 were petitioned by the wife, 32 percent by the husband, and 7 percent by the husband and wife jointly. The proportion of divorces petitioned by the wife was 65 percent when there were children involved and 56 percent when there were no children.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:21 am

Okay, now let's look at degeees of what each puts up with before deciding "that's the final straw"

In order to leave out the argument of "well, guys don't report being hit by their wives as much as wives report being hit by their husbands" (an argument that i'm not sure how accurate it may actually be, but I'll agree that there's no way to back it up) - let's just look at what can't be hidden:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm

From 1976 to 2002, about 11% of homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner (Fox and Zawitz 2004).

In 2002, 76% of IPV (intimate partner violence) homicide victims were female; 24% were male (Fox and Zawitz 2004).

The number of intimate partner homicides decreased 14% overall for men and women in the span of about 20 years, with a 67% decrease for men (from 1,357 to 388) vs. 25% for women (from 1,600 to 1,202; Fox and Zawitz 2004).

Ooh, look at that last statistic - the 67% decrease in homocides against men - similar to the 61% increase in divorces filed by women that you quoted... Okay, that's an example of statwistics, but if women are making the choice between killing him and divorcing him, that tells me it's something other than she just found somebody better...

One study found that 44% of women murdered by their intimate partner had visited an emergency department within 2 years of the homicide. Of these women, 93% had at least one injury visit (Crandall et al. 2004).

Previous literature suggests that women who have separated from their abusive partners often remain at risk of violence (Campbell et al. 2003; Fleury, Sullivan and Bybee 2000).

Perhaps I should have said women are more likely to stay in the relationship no matter what it is like for them than men are likely to stay in the relationship no matter what it is like for them.

With the 76% of the homicides being female, if we just translated that to beatings before the homicide, it's like saying three fourths of the women stayed in the relationship even though she was being beaten, but three fourths of the men stayed in the relationship even though he was beating his wife. What's harder to put up with? Getting beaten or that darned nasty habit of beating the wife? (as an illustration that is not a quote, but is a summary of the point "Uh, I don't know honey, I really love you so maybe I can put up with beating the crud out of you a little longer.")

GENIUS FORUMS

The Value of Truth + Truth & Gender

Women and divorce