GENIUS FORUMS

Well, what is a perspective of the "Totality"?

Don't know if this clarifies anything for EGG. And it doesn't really prove whether or not Diotima's basic dialectic of causes (the interplay of certain things) came to the same conclusion as Socrates about knowledge.


..

Kelly Jones wrote:Well, what is a perspective of the "Totality"?

All perspectives are perspectives of the Totality, because no perspective can be separate from the Totality.

Don't know if this clarifies anything for EGG. And it doesn't really prove whether or not Diotima's basic dialectic of causes (the interplay of certain things) came to the same conclusion as Socrates about knowledge.

??

I mentioned Socrates learning from a woman as an example. I don't think it's possible to say anything about her with certainty except that Plato and Socrates mentioned her.

As a point of interest, Ramakrishna said he learnt from a woman - a female mystic who worshiped Kali, and apparently claimed to be the earthly embodiment of Kali. It's possible to learn from anything - that is the nature of genius. I've learnt more from staring at the starry skies or stealing mangoes from other people's mango trees than anything I've read in books or heard anyone else say.

jupiviv wrote:Kelly: The truth that things are caused means they cannot exist in the discrete "objectified" way we usually perceive them to. That everything is a seamless continuum of infinite processes of causality means there are no discrete things, or even discrete causes. What then is causality?

Jupta: Depends on how you look at it. If we're talking about a frog, then we have to look at it in an "objectified" manner. If we're talking about the swamp that the frog lives in, we have to look at in in perspective of the swamp, which we have to take as "objective". If we're talking about the jungle in which the swamp exists, then we have to talk about the frog and the swamp in the perspective of the objective jungle. But since the Totality includes your perspective, you can't think of anything in perspective of the Totality....or conversely, you can think of everything in perspective of the Totality.

Kelly: Well, what is a perspective of the "Totality"?

Jupta: All perspectives are perspectives of the Totality, because no perspective can be separate from the Totality.

But can one think of everything in perspective of all perspectives? I would have thought that's impossible, as in an eye seeing itself.

Kelly: Don't know if this clarifies anything for EGG. And it doesn't really prove whether or not Diotima's basic dialectic of causes (the interplay of certain things) came to the same conclusion as Socrates about knowledge.

Jupta: ?? I mentioned Socrates learning from a woman as an example. I don't think it's possible to say anything about her with certainty except that Plato and Socrates mentioned her.

An example of what? I thought you were responding to this quote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Just thought I'd add, a woman can stand public humiliation of herself, but not of the man she loves. His public status is her own real status. She could stand poverty, ill-health, bad luck, and being abused by others, even by the man she loves. But if he decides to quit his job, become poor, allow himself to be publicly ridiculed, goes around in rags, and deliberatedly makes himself a nothing --- all the while seeing himself as noble --- she becomes outraged.

Nowadays it is conceivable that a wife could even reconcile herself to the thought that her husband would risk sacrificing himself in battle with a great power — a king, for example, or an emperor. Warum? Because it appeals to her imagination. But to expose oneself to people's gossip, to be laughed to scorn by them, that is something from which a woman's nature shrinks. She perhaps would have the fortitude to think of him beheaded by the state — but mistreated by the rabble, laughed and scorned by the crowd — no, no, that she cannot endure. Here a woman will beseech and implore the man for God's sake not to expose himself to that; she will tearfully maintain that she cannot bear to see him mistreated that way, will beg for the sake of their children, so that they may not have to suffer the torture of having the father abused in this way, and of being the children of such a father.

...

Strangely enough, Socrates always spoke of having learned from a woman. O, I, too, can say that I owe my best to a girl. I did not learn it from her directly, but she was the occasion.

— Kierkegaard

This was posted in response to Ryan's experiences of Amanda's suppressive behaviour. On that occasion, it was learning indirectly "from" a woman. By contrast, Socrates seems to have learnt directly from Diotima, and then probably improved tenfold the raw materials that he learnt.

As a point of interest, Ramakrishna said he learnt from a woman - a female mystic who worshiped Kali, and apparently claimed to be the earthly embodiment of Kali. It's possible to learn from anything - that is the nature of genius. I've learnt more from staring at the starry skies or stealing mangoes from other people's mango trees than anything I've read in books or heard anyone else say.

Can you post the reference where Ramakrishna says this?

Being (potentially) more conscious than the starry skies, a human can crystallise an idea for one. Even a girl like Regina or Amanda are able to crystallise ideas unconsciously by their behaviour and personalities, but only through the conscious man's understanding "Her". And the conscious individual can crystallise ideas directly, as Socrates did for Kierkegaard, and Diotima perhaps for Socrates; though again, the conscious person may improve many times the raw materials. For instance, Kierkegaard realised that ancient Greek paganism was mistaken in its idealistic portrayal of humans as having an innocent will to truth, which was demonstrated in Socrates' apparent lack of irony when asking people for straight answers. And Socrates seems to have improved Diotima's ideas by extending the dialectic of the interplay of causes into many other spheres apart from love.


...

I found this interesting, exceprt from Darrow's Crime Its Cause and Treatment:

VIII
THE FEMALE CRIMINAL


Women furnish only one-fifth to one-tenth of the population of penal institutions. Probably the percentage would be still lower if among these were not a number of rather common convictions for acts which are peculiar to women, like abortion, infanticide, child abandonment and the like. As to the other crimes, few women are burglars or robbers, or guilty of other crimes of violence, except murder. Women steal and poison and blackmail and extort money and lie and slander and gossip, and probably cause as much unhappiness as men; but their crimes, like their lives, are not on so large or adventurous a scale. They do not so readily take a chance; they lack the imagination that makes big criminals or lays broad schemes. In many of their crimes they are often the accomplices of men and take rather a minor part, although sometimes a quite important one. For this reason they are often not detected and frequently not prosecuted, a fact which leaves the percentage smaller than it otherwise would be. Then too, juries are apt to acquit women of crime even when they are indicted and tried. It must be a positive case and one which calls for no possible feeling of sympathy or where there is no personal appeal that will work the conviction of a woman. Men have so long adopted an attitude of chivalry toward women that very few juries will convict them. This too has much to do with the small number of female convicts.

Some writers claim that the small number of women in penal institutions shows that women are better than men; but this is a hasty conclusion arrived at from insufficient facts. There are fewer female prisoners because women have lived a more protected life; they have not been engaged so generally in business; they have not been so constantly obliged to fight their way in the world; their lives have been more quiet and smooth; they have been surrounded by strong conventions and closely watched. Especially is this true with regard to the girl as compared with the boy. Such protection naturally keeps them from the commission of crime. The great consideration shown to them by prosecuting witnesses, prosecuting officers, judges and juries, supplements the protected life and is an added reason for the showing made by statistics. It is notorious that a woman is seldom convicted of murder. This has been the subject of much complaint on the part of the public; still a man may condemn such acquittals and when placed on a jury will himself vote for acquittal.

After all, the juries are right. Most of the cases of murder against women involve sex relations. Nature has made the bearing and rearing of children first of all the woman's part, and this fact so dominates her life that nothing else seems important to her in comparison. She is not able to judge in a broad and scientific way matters so clearly affecting life. It may even be possible that in the evolution and preservation of life, her judgments are right. At least they are the natural judgments for a large number of women, or these tragedies would not occur. No doubt as woman enters the field of industry formerly monopolized by man, and as she takes her part in politics and sits on juries, the percentage of female criminals will rapidly increase. In fact, the percentage of women prisoners has been climbing for many years. As she takes her place with men she will be more and more judged as men are judged, and will commit the crimes that men commit, and perhaps furnish her fair quota to the penitentiaries and jails.

Whether this will be better or worse for the race is no part of the discussion, and can only be told by long experience. Women must accept the facts and make their choice of activities in view of these facts. Quite apart from any sentiment, I think that it is a mistake to believe that men and women should be judged alike. The structure and nervous system of women cause physical and mental disturbances which affect their judgment and life. If there were any justice in human judgment and civilization, then each human being would be judged according to his make-up, his tendencies, his inclinations and his capacities, and no two would be judged alike.

Any sudden change in the treatment of women in the courts will work a great injustice that will leave its effect on both women and men, and still more on the life of the race.

This book was written in 1922 and we have seen a rapid increase in female crime. Also, Darrow's view of female psychology is interesting...

Animus wrote:I found this interesting, exceprt from Darrow's Crime Its Cause and Treatment:

Yes.

If there were any justice in human judgment and civilization, then each human being would be judged according to his make-up, his tendencies, his inclinations and his capacities, and no two would be judged alike.

This is fair enough, but it implies that the judge is not human.

Also, Darrow's view of female psychology is interesting...

The structure and nervous system of women cause physical and mental disturbances which affect their judgment and life.

I think he must be talking about the hormonal changes around menstruation or menopause, being pregnant, and the different stimulation of the autonomic nervous system.

From Leonard Sax's book:

Seventy years ago, physiologist Walter Cannon studied the hormonal response of animals to stress and confrontation. He didn't want to bother with the hormonal fluctuation of female estrus and menstrual cycles, so he studied only male animals. Cannon described the cascade of hormonal responses to stress: increased heart rate, dilated pupils, a surge of adrenaline in the blood, all mediated by that division of the autonomic nervous system known as the sympathetic nervous system. Because these responses prepare the animal to fight or run away, Cannon named this cascade the "fight or flight" response.

Incredibly, researchers who followed up on Cannon's work continued to study only male animals. UCLA professor Shelley Taylor has estimated that roughly 90 percent of all scholarly work on hormonal responses to stress has been done exclusively on male animals (including humans).*

* Shelley Taylor and associates, "Biobehavioral Responses to Stress in Females: Tend-and-Befriend, Not Fight-or-Flight," Psychological Review, 107:411-29, 2000. See also Dr. Taylor's book The Tending Instinct (New York: Henry Holt, 2002).

Scientists assumed that males and females were wired in the same way. It never occurred to those (male) scientists that females might be different. Nobody studied women.

We now know that females are wired to respond to stress in a different way than males are. Dozens of studies over the past twenty years have consistently shown dramatic sex differences in the biobehavioral response to stress. The female autonomic nervous system has been shown to be influenced more by the parasympathetic nervous system, which is energized by acetylcholine rather than adrenaline and which causes an unpleasant, nauseating feeling rather than the "thrill" of the sympathetic nervous system.*

* Many studies demonstrate that the female autonomic nervous system in humans is influenced more by the parasympathetic nervous system while the male autonomic nervous system is influenced more by the sympathetic nervous system. For a discussion and list of the relevant references, please go to www.genderdifferences.org/autonomic.htm

When most young boys are exposed to threat and confrontation, their senses sharpen and they feel an exciting tingle. (In chapter 9, we'll consider boys who are exceptions to this rule.) When most young girls are exposed to threat and confrontation, they feel dizzy and 'yucky'. They may have unaccustomed trouble expressing themselves with just the right words. They may experience nausea or an urge to use the bathroom.

Bottom line: many young boys get a thrill from violent or quasi-violent confrontation. Most young girls don't. Some ten-year-old boys will spend their last nickel to play video arcade games in which enemies are shooting at them. Few ten-year-old girls find simulated combat worth spending their last nickels on.

I'm not saying that girls are never violent, just that girls seldom enjoy physical violence the way boys do. Girls are violent in their own way.

..

Sounds interesting Kelly. I'm gonna check out more of that.

Kelly Jones wrote:

jupiviv wrote:All perspectives are perspectives of the Totality, because no perspective can be separate from the Totality.

But can one think of everything in perspective of all perspectives? I would have thought that's impossible, as in an eye seeing itself.

Think of it this way:

The self + everything else = Totality.

Therefore, Duality = Totality.

I mentioned Socrates learning from a woman as an example.

An example of what?

I was responding to Kunga. It was an example of a man indirectly learning from a woman. I.e, either learning something from a woman by projecting his understanding onto her words, or understanding himself in contrast to her. I didn't see the Kierkegaard quote, but it appears he was saying the same thing as me.

Some of Ramakrishna's biographies mention the female mystic. From Wikipedia:

"His first spiritual teacher was an ascetic woman skilled in Tantra and Vaishnava bhakti."

Why do only women scream (when suddenly frightened).
Oh, and i noticed gay men do too. Some do, at least.

Is it an accurate test of femininity.
I think so.
No time to think.

What do people think of apparently straight men who scream on impulse.
I know what i think, but am i wrong?
Am i bad?

When was the last time you screamed, Kelly.

EGG

awakeninggenius wrote:No time to think.

One could explain it as the weaker's instinctive call for help, plus their mental submission to the threat.

What do people think of apparently straight men who scream on impulse.

Generally, it might mean they have a deep lack of faith in their own ability to deal with new things. They haven't learnt to understand their own powers of imagination.

I know what i think, but am i wrong?

It would help if you presented your reasoning. Intuitions need to be clarified.

When was the last time you screamed, Kelly.

I'm not the screaming type. My mind is more likely to become much more focussed on trying to understand the nature of a sudden, great sensory shock. I seem quite placid when faced with dangerous situations. For instance, recently I had to sprint for an hour after dusk at the close of seven hours' gruelling mountain climbs, because of the unexpectedly cold conditions on a highland moor. By looking at cycletourists' journals, I believe that most would scream or have ranting type thoughts in a similar situation. I just focussed on the task at hand. I seem to be more immune to physical pain or psychological stress than many people.


..

A month later, but better later than never.

guest_of_logic: The implied inferiority is obvious: money, status, fun and worldly purpose are all "delusional" through QRStian eyes.

Diebert: One could make as well the case that the ones valuing money, status, relationships or fun above philosophical inquiry are the ones saying people like your "QRStians" are inferior or "dysfunctional" as is actually being claimed often enough. This is the thing, Laird, once values are defined, others are diminished or "judged" to be of less or no importance. Once you select a "healthy" or "sane" course of action, other actions are judged to be more or less insane or unhealthy. You seem to aim for "everything is equal in some cosmic sense" ethics. But such ethics are imaginary; nobody can truly lead a life based on it although it's easy to say.

You make a reasonable point, but you miss the fundamental difference between the two cases: that QRStians tout their values as, if not "ultimate", then at least based on "ultimate" truths, and judge others from this very lofty position, whereas "worldly" folk tend to have more of a relative attitude - something like, "Hey, this works well for me - it might not be The Way, but I'm happy with it. If it works for you too, then great, otherwise no worries, and good luck on your own path". Now, you might not particularly care about how QRStians are perceived outside of their own clique, but you're a smart enough guy - I'm sure you can imagine how this attitude gets perceived by onlookers, particularly those onlookers who, like me, don't see anything ultimate in QRStianity.

guest_of_logic: Often enough on this forum the common "deluded" man/woman, living a worldly life, is looked down upon.

Diebert: When it comes to the ability to reason, to have interest in developing a relationship with the "infinite", with existential issues: yes, by definition such "common" life will not allow for it.

Don't you see, though, that the very philosophical platform upon which contempt for the worldly is based is the very same philosophical platform that undermines that contempt? The QRStian doctrines of "formlessness", the absence of intrinsic meaning, and the absence of objective superiority or inferiority imply that, ultimately, one constructs one's own value, and that no set of values are intrinsically superior or inferior to any other set of values. The QRStian values then, are arbitrary creations in and of The Void: no more or less "correct" than the values of the worldly individual. There is no genuine basis for the QRStian to judge the values and lifestyle of the worldly with the scorn that he typically does.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The materialistic life is "earthy" in the sense of being very attached and involved with objects, status, emotions - all very divisive and ultimately based on a host of contradicting beliefs. How would you suggest looking at it favorably, unless one looks at it like looking at the miracle of nature itself, which by the way just changes the category and is meaningless as argument in this kind of discussions.

Sure, "normal" life often involves problems and contradictions - I wouldn't suggest otherwise - but I would suggest that there are possible rational and holistic responses to those problems and contradictions that don't involve adopting the QRStian paradigm. Along these lines, I don't, for example, agree with the QRStian doctrine of opposites: that love necessarily entails hatred, etc. I think, though, that this doctrine would need to be expressed very very clearly before I'd attempt to mount an opposing case.

guest_of_logic: The other half of the equation then can be summed up as compassion: compassion towards self and compassion towards others.

Diebert: Since compassion is commonly understood as being aware of the suffering of other people and working toward elevating it, the highest compassion by definition is the largest awareness of the common core of suffering and actions which lead to addressing that core. It should be clear this whole forum is intended for the greatest possible compassion. You could show a bit more gratitude...

I can imagine that you see it that way, but from my perspective this forum to a large extent pollutes minds rather than alleviates suffering. In any case, you seem to have skirted around directly denying that compassion is (at the very least, conceptually) a feminine virtue, but you've implied that it is not, just as I predicted would be your position.

guest_of_logic: that out of an entrenched male-chauvinistic bias, every positive traditionally feminine trait gets reframed by QRStianity as a truly masculine one.

Diebert: At least they are consistent!

At most they are consistent.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Get back at me if you ever find unbiased evidence of positive feminine traits present more in females than in males, beyond what you and much of society likes to believe.

I'm not really interested in empirical debates about gender: I'll leave that to the scientists. My interest is in the conceptual framing of the genders in QRStianity. Dan has played the "context" card, so I'll explore that here with reference to the conclusions that I came to in the opening post of the thread that I just started, Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy: primarily, my conclusion that many of the QRStian arguments, particularly those against the emotions, are spurious, and that the anti-emotion stance is actually based on aesthetics, and not reason. Following on from that, my contention is that QRStianity, rather than representing "Ultimate Truth" and the implications thereof, and far from being based on "pure logic", is actually a semi-arbitrary value system based on the non-rational idealisations of its founders, who, very notably, are all men: naturally enough, the idealisations cater far more to the male mind than to the female mind. This, in my opinion, is the real reason that there is truth to the QRStian contention that it is highly unlikely for women to become enlightened by the QRStian definition: because, far from being an "ideal" state wholly supported by pure reason, the QRStian state of enlightenment is actually a masculine fantasy comprised of various components:
* The Invulnerable Rock, immune from harm and emotional manipulation (a masculine archetype);
* the invincible in argumentation, debate and reasoning (catering to the conqueror's spirit in man);
* the ultimately knowledgeable (stereotypically, men hate to have to use the phrase "I don't know");
* one beyond all doubt (stereotypically, men hate to have to use the phrase "I'm not sure");
* one on an inspired mission, The Propagation of Wisdom (reflecting the goal-driven identity of men)
* one recognised as a wise sage and a teacher (reflecting men's desire for achievement-based respect).

Is there anything wrong with this idealisation? Not necessarily - it might work for certain individuals, and if so, then that's great for them. Where I do see a problem is where it's falsely marketed as True Enlightenment; as a reasoned position; as an idealisation to which women too ought to aspire: this is where I see minds being polluted; superiority complexes running rampant; veiled and not so veiled contempt for women with no rational basis - indeed, with a very apparent and very repugnant psychological basis.

I don't expect committed QRStians to acknowledge all of this, of course: they are too invested in the rewards that this game offers them. Let me add that the three founders of this paradigm seem to be decent blokes. Good blokes to have as mates? Absolutely. But "enlightened"?... only when you custom define the meaning of that word.

I feel moderately inspired to respond to your other long missive, Laird, but I'm wondering in what sense you feel that my sense of enlightenment is "custom defined" (I'm not talking about methods to that place but the place itself)?

Please describe how you see - and why - the content of my Enlightenment video is so, um, "customised" - and compared to what?

Dan,

I don't have too much of a problem, at least on the surface, with your framing of enlightenment in that video, but only when ignoring the rest of your position. "The absence of delusion" and "a conscious awareness of the nature of reality" are sensible enough starting points for a definition of enlightenment, at least on the surface, but there does seem to be a very big something missing from those definitions, even though it occurs elsewhere in your position: ego transcendence. Aside from that, the big problem that I have is with all that's unsaid in that video, most of which I listed in my previous post. I get the impression from your reply that you consider all of that stuff to be "methods to that place" and not "the place itself", but I don't think that the two can be separated so neatly. The core of it is this, and it's a pretty simple point, so I won't belabour it: the points that I listed in my previous post point to an invested ego, and not to a being of transcended ego.

guest_of_logic wrote: QRStians tout their values as, if not "ultimate", then at least based on "ultimate" truths

Not sure how any practical value can be directly based on a timeless, ultimate truth. Perhaps it's more like the way one values ('masculine') will be elemental in approaching the timeless truths. Emptiness however is valueless.

guest_of_logic wrote: I would suggest that there are possible rational and holistic responses to those problems and contradictions that don't involve adopting the QRStian paradigm.

For you there's this "qristian paradigm", whatever you think that is, but in my view it's just rationality and holism. I happen to find it in many places expressed in various ways. Your exclusive focus on these people alone might become a problem in itself.

you seem to have skirted around directly denying that compassion is (at the very least, conceptually) a feminine virtue

Well, for the record, it's not a feminine virtue at all. Could you name a specific feminine virtue, I wonder? I started this thread once for that purpose.

I'm not really interested in empirical debates about gender: I'll leave that to the scientists.

But what scientists find is not irrelevant for you, I might hope? At the very least it might make you reconsider some of the anecdotal myths.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Could you name a specific feminine virtue, I wonder?

The "softer" virtues are feminine: compassion, empathy, tolerance, flexibility, patience, etc.

The "harder" virtues are masculine: strength, courage, reason, endurance, fortitude, etc.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But what scientists find is not irrelevant for you, I might hope?

It's relevant, I just treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism, considering the challenges of conducting that type of psychological research without bias and taking all factors into account.

guest_of_logic wrote: The "softer" virtues are feminine: compassion, empathy, tolerance, flexibility, patience, etc.

The "harder" virtues are masculine: strength, courage, reason, endurance, fortitude, etc.

One could also see all true virtue as necessarily being a result of a strong character. It takes for example strength and self-esteem to accept (more then just barely tolerate) something different and alien to ones own. The weaker one would just accept fate out of fear or lack of choice, or indulge in other fear-based behavior. This might help to understand why "softer" or "Christian" values are not always what they appear to be. For those raised in a Judeo-Christian world it's not always easy to shake off the misconceptions one is spoon fed with.

It's probably true a typical feminine trait would be to feel for other people's or animal's pain, as a typical woman possessing such traits very easily identifies with signs of suffering around her, a sensitivity likely to have been developed through evolution; to be more sensitive for the needs of children and family, her "world". And psychologically her identity lies more in her environment, the others, the family, the children, the whole extended being surrounding her, although not much further. So empathy here is a direct consequence of a weaker sense of personal individuality and shifting boundaries.

Empathy has been raised mainly through the Christian ideal as virtue, a nobler kind of pithy and care-instinct. But instead of arguing about if it could really be called virtue, I'll just accept it in the context of this discussion. But as I already explained, one has to really be careful with "tolerance, flexibility, patience" as they are behaviors which can appear out of strength or way more commonly out of weakness and incapacity, the lack of option.

In my view compassion and any stronger version of empathy goes beyond passively or emotionally reacting on seeing someone in pain. It's a "deep awareness" of the complete situation, independent of the sights or sounds of suffering. This is where it becomes a masculine, strong, virtue and will not be easily swayed by the easy to manipulate appearance of a situation.

Diebert, you silk worm, you, spinning, spinning, spinning your cocoon; all around me you spin, and I am left to unweave that which makes its way off your spindle.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:One could also see all true virtue as necessarily being a result of a strong character. It takes for example strength and self-esteem to accept (more then just barely tolerate) something different and alien to ones own. The weaker one would just accept fate out of fear or lack of choice, or indulge in other fear-based behavior. This might help to understand why "softer" or "Christian" values are not always what they appear to be. For those raised in a Judeo-Christian world it's not always easy to shake off the misconceptions one is spoon fed with.

It also takes a strong character to truly listen to and understand another human being's situation and concerns, rather than to (weakly, out of fear) blast over that other with one's own concerns - is this not feminine virtue in action?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's probably true a typical feminine trait would be to feel for other people's or animal's pain, as a typical woman possessing such traits very easily identifies with signs of suffering around her, a sensitivity likely to have been developed through evolution; to be more sensitive for the needs of children and family, her "world". And psychologically her identity lies more in her environment, the others, the family, the children, the whole extended being surrounding her, although not much further. So empathy here is a direct consequence of a weaker sense of personal individuality and shifting boundaries.

Would you apply a similar "evolutionary" analysis to masculine traits? I wonder. Would you, for example, posit that man's rationality is based around his need to outsmart his prey? Would you posit that likewise, man's strength is based on his need to overcome his prey? Would you then conclude that strength and rationality are a direct consequence of a weaker sense of a need to overpower and destroy?

Spinning is eternal, my friend. Could you have perfected the artform?

guest_of_logic wrote: all around me you spin, and I am left to unweave that which makes its way off your spindle.

Sounds to me you feel weak and threatened but instead of seeing into it, you're trying to blame it on something unqualified at my side, that I'd "spin". If there's a cocoon spun around you, wouldn't it be your own spinning, and your own task to break out of it? How could my silk get stuck around you in the first place?

It also takes a strong character to truly listen to and understand another human being's situation and concerns, rather than to (weakly, out of fear) blast over that other with one's own concerns

Sure, but the discussion was if this strong trait can be called feminine at all. While I'm not sure it has to be specifically masculine either but certainly "truly listening" instead of blasting out one's own concerns doesn't remind me of anything typical female. Actually experience learns many women are quite obsessed over their personal concerns and lives, and the sharing of those details. Men in general talk about things outside their personal sphere, I don't know, cars, DIY, sport, games, the stars and so on.

Would you, for example, posit that man's rationality is based around his need to outsmart his prey?

The challenge to survive and outsmarting cold, prey, enemy, predator, disease and so on favored the rational being, featuring strong character traits like endurance and courage. In the wild, for hunter as well as hunted, it pays off big time to be reasonable, calculated, attentive and focused. And the moment one talks about delusion as the enemy, ignorance as a trap, one cannot help but seeing how only a masculine, active mindset might overpower and destroy not the prey but the predators.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Sounds to me you feel weak and threatened but instead of seeing into it, you're trying to blame it on something unqualified at my side, that I'd "spin".

You do spin, Diebert. You challenged me to present a feminine virtue, and when I presented several, you, without denying that they were feminine, tried to deny that they were virtues at all: you are invested in denying all virtue to femininity, and I'm not interested in engaging with you any further in what is bound to continue be an unproductive exchange. I'd say that if anyone feels weak and threatened, it is he who seeks to deny value to the entirety of that gender which is not his own.

Laird'd make the same accusation to me, Diebert. If one criticises women generally, he views you as mentally ill. He doesn't mind criticising the human species as a whole, or men generally. So there's something whoofy in Laird's closet.


...

Nah Laird, you're just demonstrating unwillingness to enter the discussion by continuous misrepresentation of the other and voicing hostility. It's a common pattern and not just "being tired at the end of a day".

guest_of_logic wrote:[You challenged me to present a feminine virtue, and when I presented several, you, without denying that they were feminine

I explained why I thought they could not be called "feminine virtues" but instead of challenging the specifics of my reasoning you go into attacks on my motives towards you, while pretending I never made my case. Look into that nasty habit, man!

you are invested in denying all virtue to femininity

You mean: it's my reasoned view that there is way less there than advertised. And you disagree. Disagreements are why people discuss.

it is he who seeks to deny value to the entirety of that gender which is not his own.

I've never said women cannot possess any virtue. Don't you see how you are manipulating and falsifying statements to make your case? The discussion is if the virtues you named can be called feminine (linked specifically to the female gender) or are actual virtues, that is: desired qualities for human beings.

And further more, I conceded that empathy could be called a feminine virtue so for some reason you're not reading what I wrote. And at that stage: what's the point?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:what's the point?

It seems we've at least reached a consensus that there's no point in continuing this discussion.

For women, empathy is making-believe you know what someone else's emotions are, but also making-believe that you really are that person to the point of being fully convinced that you can read their mind.

For men, empathy is trying to imagine what someone's else's attitude is, but not forgetting this is all in your own imagination.

This is largely the crux of relationship issues between the sexes.


...