GENIUS FORUMS

.


What ultimately has more power/control: the thing-wanted, or the thing that wants.


.

Hi, Pye.

My answer is: both. What's one without the other?

.

This is crap. Obviously one needs that which one lacks.

Dan,

That is demonstrably wrong and defies both common sense and everyday experience. Do you seriously, for example, believe that the attraction one gender has for the other is purely based in physical differences?

That's the problem with responding to posts sentence by sentence. You often take a sentence out of context. For instance, your above reply to me makes no sense, given that I'm clearly referring to the QRS terms "masucline" and "feminine", rather then how such terms are used by the general public.

Interesting, given this board is about much more than that issue. Perhaps people aren't so much interested in truth as they are ideas that make them look good.

QRS Truthâ„¢ isn't the only available flavor. I know you know that Dan.

Do you suppose some values are above scrutinty? You certainly imply it.

Unless an individual's values are harmful to others, I don't see what the point of scrutiny is. On what grounds do you laud and condemn that which you do? Given that happiness isn't seen as particularly valuable around here, you must not weigh things on a utilitarian scale. So what logical grounds do you have for condemning romantic relationships? That they can turn out bad? What does that even mean to someone who doesn't value happiness?

Jesus. They are an exception to the norm. But they are not lauded for their being thus. Regular female contributors to serious philosophy boards are rare. You know that. Suck it up.

So what are you suggesting? Women who visit philosophy boards are walking in the direction of that all-important "masculinity", and thus should exclude themselves from any generalizations made about the majority of women? I'm of the thought that you don't need to participate on internet forums to think logically and deeply about things. That opinion holds true for members of both sexes.

However, all people are egotistical and manipulative; this is equally obvious. The question and issue here is in what way one gender is so, not that they are necessarily moreso.

Then why the different values placed on "feminine" and "masculine"? Isn't it implicate in the way you use the terms that women tend to be worse in that regards (or some other)?

.

Howdy Leyla :)

All things-wanted can be rendered inert by the wanter. Things-wanted, in themselves, have no "power." They need a wanter, first. And in the case of conscious wanters, they can want to not-want it, too.

Subject has power. Object does not. Only what the subject gives it. Or not.

In the case of sex, no one will die without having it with other people - by rape or otherwise - and in this sense, doesn't classify as a "need." Even if elevated to a deep physiological need, it can be released by the subject itself. Or you can hand over all your consciousness to a species-need (to procreate), and remain the unconscious person that this would make you.


.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: That's the problem with responding to posts sentence by sentence. You often take a sentence out of context. For instance, your above reply to me makes no sense, given that I'm clearly referring to the QRS terms "masucline" and "feminine", rather then how such terms are used by the general public.

I think the point is that QRS "masculine" and "feminine" actually are how things used to be used by the general public. I mean, if you look at anthropological literature for non-western cultures, or archaeology or history, the patterns described by QRS as "feminine" and "masculine" show up repeatedly as the assigned gender roles. The big jump that QRS has taken is to assign value to these roles and say that the masculine roles and mindsets are better than the feminine, rather than "just the way things are"

Also, the assigning of the word "conscious/unconscious" to masculine and feminine - which is not a difficult jump to make from traditional gender roles.

When folks like Sue assert something about women, I imagine that most of the women here assume that it doesn't apply to them in particular, and thus don't object.

Ah, well, no, not really. There isn't an auto-exclusion statement here. Within the last week Sue has said something that made me stop rethink my reactions to certain situations because I recognized too much of myself in her words.

Yeah, I mean obviously there is some major difference between me and your average woman just based on the fact that I'm interested enough to spend my free time reading and thinking and posting here. But that doesn't translate into "doesn't apply to me at all!"

Pye wrote:

Subject has power. Object does not. Only what the subject gives it. Or not.

Yes, but whether one conceives lack (which necessarily becomes an object/thing-wanted) in self or other, they endeavour to become the object that fills/completes it.

The unconscious is nothing more than drive without voice--without reason. A signifier surfaces from the unconscious in language as a metaphor, which in turn is the condensation of many ideas into one. In the unconscious, these signifiers have no logical connection. In language, through metaphor and metonymy, the attempt is made. “Jew,” like “woman,” is a metaphor--the condensation of ideas into one idea.

The unconscious necessarily manifests to the conscious with a desire or drive to fill lack; to identify and redeem or resolve loss. There is the drive to return to a united state with the whole and without conscience; a union with (the metaphoric) mother; or, “Woman.” The postmodernists’ “enlightenment.”

“I” is also condensation; metaphoric.

“Castration” is the act and law of separation between subject and object, self from other--the way to the individual. It is “in the name of the father” (bearing in mind that metaphor is inescapable in discourse) and there can be no reason, language, logic, exchange of ideas, subject or object without it.

All things-wanted can be rendered inert by the wanter. Things-wanted, in themselves, have no "power." They need a wanter, first. And in the case of conscious wanters, they can want to not-want it, too.

Nothing, in itself, has any power--not even subject. The subject gives nothing for not having something taken away. Subject is thus defined, and manifest, by its lack.

[General editing]

.

Katy,

I think the point is that QRS "masculine" and "feminine" actually are how things used to be used by the general public. I mean, if you look at anthropological literature for non-western cultures, or archaeology or history, the patterns described by QRS as "feminine" and "masculine" show up repeatedly as the assigned gender roles.

I've seen folks associate notions like caring, compassion, and temperance with the term feminine. I've also seen folks associate aggressiveness, stupidity, and recklessness with the term masculine. I'm sure I could find plenty of examples in anthropology, history, and my own personal experience to back up these generalizations. Yet, what really would be the point? Do we gain anything by dwelling on a dualism that can be so easily transcended?

The big jump that QRS has taken is to assign value to these roles and say that the masculine roles and mindsets are better than the feminine, rather than "just the way things are"

That's pretty much what gets me. The unargued premise that QRS values somehow follow logically from their descriptions of the way things are. You can't get an ought from an is alone.


As something of an aside, I think if a person really wants to distinguish fundamental differences in outlook between men and women, they should read the available heterophenomenological accounts. Or, to be more precise, the various memoirs and autobiographies written by folks of both sexes. Heck, even works of fiction and poetry give insight into how folks think.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: I've seen folks associate notions like caring, compassion, and temperance with the term feminine. I've also seen folks associate aggressiveness, stupidity, and recklessness with the term masculine. I'm sure I could find plenty of examples in anthropology, history, and my own personal experience to back up these generalizations. Yet, what really would be the point? Do we gain anything by dwelling on a dualism that can be so easily transcended?

I don't think you'd see much disagreement on your terms for women, either though. Caring and compassion are forms of social behavior, as well as attachments... both already defined as feminine. I'm lost on temperance though, since last I checked it meant "A political movement aiming to get rid of alcohol" which - while it was lead by women I think is not what you mean here?

That's pretty much what gets me. The unargued premise that QRS values somehow follow logically from their descriptions of the way things are. You can't get an ought from an is alone.

Well... it's a matter of what you value. What your goals are. There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" answer to the question, exactly. If someone really wants to be the queen of popculture trivia... good for her. If someone wants to be wise, good for him. They will each cultivate the traits they want to see more of in their lives.

As something of an aside, I think if a person really wants to distinguish fundamental differences in outlook between men and women, they should read the available heterophenomenological accounts. Or, to be more precise, the various memoirs and autobiographies written by folks of both sexes. Heck, even works of fiction and poetry give insight into how folks think.

I made a similar argument and demonstration for a history class last semester. I agree completely - however I think it's important to ground such things in scholarly overviews as well...