GENIUS FORUMS

not sure what your point is, EI...

Your point seems to be that women divorce men because the men are horrible to them - is that right? You seem to think that physical abuse is a primary cause of divorce? (I haven't looked into that.)

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...

No, the 61% was not an increase. It was the proportion of the divorces filed by women in that particular year. I did not look at rates of change over time.

DHodges wrote:

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...

No, the 61% was not an increase. It was the proportion of the divorces filed by women in that particular year. I did not look at rates of change over time.

You're right, that was sloppy of me.

not sure what your point is, EI...

Your point seems to be that women divorce men because the men are horrible to them - is that right? You seem to think that physical abuse is a primary cause of divorce? (I haven't looked into that.)

My point was to respond to your refuting of my point that refuted Kevin's appearant proposition that women are so fickle as to routinely be willing to divorce a man just because she finds someone that she would prefer and find nothing wrong with that so long as it was not just for lust.

The overall point is that Kevin's illustration was not an accurate overall reflection of women. Bringing it back to the point of the thread, why would that be an acceptable misrepresentation to make?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The overall point is that Kevin's illustration was not an accurate overall reflection of women. Bringing it back to the point of the thread, why would that be an acceptable misrepresentation to make?

Ah, so you feel that Kevin has misrepresented Woman, and you are defending Her. Okay.


Back to the causes of divorce, a quick look around the internet gives me a few impressions: it varies quite a bit from country to country and culture to culture, and the legally filed cause may have little to do with the actual cause.

This seemed like a reasonable summary.

The only statistic relating abuse to divorce that I found in my quick scan was on Wikipedia, which quotes 10-17% of divorce cases having abuse as the main cause in the UK, but also notes:

Emotional and physical abuse were more evenly split, with women affected in 60% and men in 40% of cases.

DHodges wrote: Ah, so you feel that Kevin has misrepresented Woman, and you are defending Her. Okay.

Actually, I am defending the truth - as I expect the forum in general here to be.

As your summary link states "Surprisingly, physical and emotional abuse are not as commonly reported as causes of divorce. This might be because reports are kept private or because physically and emotionally abused spouses find it more difficult to leave the marriage than those in other circumstances." (italics mine)

What exactly is your point David? Are you quite sure that Kevin's example is representative of how women are?

Leyla Shen wrote:

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?

:)

.

Nah.

I can handle ya.

But, only with caps lock on.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The overall point is that Kevin's illustration was not an accurate overall reflection of women. Bringing it back to the point of the thread, why would that be an acceptable misrepresentation to make?

It wasn't clear from your opening post what your point was.

The way I represent women is a generalization. It's not an exaggeration or a misrepresentation.

It's like saying "Human beings have two legs, two arms, and opposable thumbs". This statement is not true of all human beings, and yet is not untrue, and is not an exaggeration.

Saying that "Women are incapable of philosophy" is a similar generalization.

Kevin Solway wrote: It wasn't clear from your opening post what your point was.

The way I represent women is a generalization. It's not an exaggeration or a misrepresentation.

Kevin,

This whole thread is not about you, it is about men in general and men's interpretation of the value of honesty. Thank you for clarifying that your illustrative dialogue was an accurate representation of your perceptions of how females are. Although I disagree with the accuracy of the representation, I accept that as honesty in that this was your actual perception.

Since you are here Kevin, perhaps you could clarify why - as in "While the purpose of 'Poison for the heart' is to trick people into becoming enlightened, and 'Power words' is to trick people into beginning to think, 'The love base' is to trick people into thinking about doing something." - tricking people was your goal rather than simple, direct honesty?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Since you are here Kevin, perhaps you could clarify why - as in "While the purpose of 'Poison for the heart' is to trick people into becoming enlightened, and 'Power words' is to trick people into beginning to think, 'The love base' is to trick people into thinking about doing something." - tricking people was your goal rather than simple, direct honesty?

It is "tricking" people in the sense that they will be led somewhere where they did not intend to go.

For example, you might tell a young child that they should go to school because they will enjoy meeting new friends and playing games and having fun. When in fact they are going to school for their education.

In some cases it doesn't help to explain to a five year old that they should go to school for their education.

Kevin wrote,

For example, you might tell a young child that they should go to school because they will enjoy meeting new friends and playing games and having fun.

'Poison for the heart' really isnt that seductive of a title.

It's one of the only books about enlightenment that make enlightenment seem like an end that can only be achieved through a rather painful and heartbreaking journey.

Its a good book though.

Elizabeth has a bad habit of taking everything she reads literally. She's got zero chance of understanding someone like Nietzsche with that approach. You cannot state the bald truth to just anyone, because they may not understand it or not have come to value Truth sufficiently to make an effort to. You cannot reason with a person that does not value reason, nor with an hysterical person. You have to work with what's real for them and that may mean exploiting their emotions or their attachments and sundry delusions. It's simply obvious that the wise person must work with the delusions of the ignorant because that's all there is to work with.

An example of "tricking" a person into a position they might not have intended would be, say, a person with a strong emotional attachment to their sense of honour and integrity. Now, this may have an entirely egotistical and false basis and may be deludedly directed because of it (e.g. into the moral realm). But one can exploit this delusional mindset by suggesting to that person that the most honourable thing for a person to do is in fact value reason and Truth above all things.

Inititally, this will be a form of manipulation and exploitation, but when a person begins to value reason more, and thus becomes more conscious, they can make their own decisions about what is and is not most valuable.

"Tricking" means nothing more controversial than using whatever tool one can to make the unconscious, conscious.

Dan Rowden wrote: "Tricking" means nothing more controversial than using whatever tool one can to make the unconscious, conscious.

Nicely put. It can be as simple as telling someone to "observe your mind".

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:What exactly is your point David? Are you quite sure that Kevin's example is representative of how women are?

No, actually, I disagree with Kevin on the implication that all (or almost all) women are the same, but men aren't. Yes, some women are fickle. So are some men.

I think that actually misses the point of what Kevin's little dialogue, though. Let's restate it here:

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.

I think that A might then add:
A: But that's not going to happen - I'm going to be faithful forever.

The point being that even after recognising that what she is saying may or may not be what will actually happen, she still chooses to believe it, and will say it as if it is definitely true. And this would generally be seen as a good thing, as a sign of her commitment.

I would say that this has less to do with the nature of women than with the nature of love. Love means choosing to believe certain things "with all your heart." Men do the same thing, or they wouldn't get married. It's based on delusion; it's a leap of faith.

No one can really say what they will do five or ten years down the line, because they are not that person, and what the other person will be like five or ten years from now is also unknown. Those people do not yet exist, and when they do, the person who is speaking now will not. It is the delusion of the ego existing inherently.

...

The other point was that you were implicitly demonizing men - implying that men abusing women was a major cause of divorce, when actually it is a minor cause, and goes both ways. And you were misusing statistics to do so. I find that offensive, both as a man and as a statistician.

David H.,

My intent was not to implicitly demonize men by implying that most divorces are due to men's abuse of women, but only to challenge tha accuracy of the sentiment. I will bring back a quote from the begining of this line of questions that I believe illustrates that:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.

My use of statistics was in response to your use of statistics,, and was done to defend my earlier statement intended to convey that women are more likely to seek a divorce for a good reason, rather than just because they saw somebody they suddenly found preferable (as Kevin had implied). I believe that your being offended emotionally blinded you to what my actual intent was.

*********************

DHodges wrote:
I think that actually misses the point of what Kevin's little dialogue, though. Let's restate it here:

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.

I think that A might then add:
A: But that's not going to happen - I'm going to be faithful forever.

The point being that even after recognising that what she is saying may or may not be what will actually happen, she still chooses to believe it, and will say it as if it is definitely true. And this would generally be seen as a good thing, as a sign of her commitment.

Although you followed the above with a good point, I don't think I missed Kevin's point, as evidenced by Kevin's statement that his representation was a generalization of women:

Kevin Solway wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The overall point is that Kevin's illustration was not an accurate overall reflection of women...

The way I represent women is a generalization. It's not an exaggeration or a misrepresentation.

It's like saying "Human beings have two legs, two arms, and opposable thumbs". This statement is not true of all human beings, and yet is not untrue, and is not an exaggeration.

As I said, you did follow up with a good point:

DHodges wrote: this has less to do with the nature of women than with the nature of love. Love means choosing to believe certain things "with all your heart." Men do the same thing, or they wouldn't get married. It's based on delusion; it's a leap of faith.

No one can really say what they will do five or ten years down the line, because they are not that person, and what the other person will be like five or ten years from now is also unknown. Those people do not yet exist, and when they do, the person who is speaking now will not. It is the delusion of the ego existing inherently.

That is a good observation of what goes wrong in relationships - and I venture to say that isn't just with love, but also with friendships and even less interpersonal relationships (career choice, etc.).

finding the solution is where our lives are spend in,a mutual exchange that gives para-rational creativity.

Elizabeth wrote:

Why do guys think it is okay to lie and exaggeraterate to make themselves look tougher than they are?

Because they are socially conditioned to appear tougher than they really are, just as women are socially conditioned to appear more aesthetically pleasing than they really are. It's part of their biological and social role. Most men know they generally can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but they can't let this reality be known because they are totally expected to be otherwise. Can you imagine a society of wimps lasting 5 minutes in an aggressive world? It's an unfortunate state of affairs but unless a new paradigm occurs globally, it isn't going to change any time soon.

Why would some guys rather live in a world of deceipt where on the one hand they think their buddies are going to be there to empower them but on the other hand they know that guys lie about their abilities?

Ask some war veterans that question. What an individual may lack in personal ability can be overcome by numbers. It's a sort of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" kind of thing.

Wouldn't it be better to know for sure who could do what and who needed help so where one was strong he could help another fix his weakness, and the other could help the first person where it was the second person who was strong and the first weak? Then both would be strong - but instead they want to keep their lies and delusions - why?

Because society expects each individual to be strong. That's a very powerful psychological force especially when you consider that it is ingrained in every man from early childhood, just as the aesthetic is ingrained into every woman.

What are some other differences and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?

The mundane examples of truth valuing, or lack thereof are manifold. I'll think I'll just address this in individual responses in this thread.

Is it ever okay to manipulate someone with a lie? If so, when?

Yes, if the person's welfare is actually at stake. Only an idiot with an irrational truth fixation would tell a person on a building ledge that he's right that no-one cares about him, even if it happens to be true. In such a case, "truth" would be a counterproductive thing. Truth (in a mundane sense) only has merit in those circumstances where it can be taken on board and utilised. In the case of the jumper that can happen later when his brain is able to make use of it.

Basically, I wear make-up when I have to, if I have to.

Can't every woman say exactly the same thing? And, in fact, don't they?

If I expect to see people, I'll put mascara on because I look sick if I don't. Actually I got sent home sick one day when I didn't feel all that bad, and when I got in the car I noticed that I'd forgotten to put on mascara that day. That proved to me that if I didn't keep up with the expectations society places on me, I don't get to participate in society.

And if the expectation is that you discriminate against blacks or kill Jews, what then? If the expectation is that you believe certain things, politically or philosophically, that you know to be false, what then? Where does one draw the line at being false? Your above justification of it, which is understandable, nevertheless means that any justification is permissible along the lines of that participation principle; it just leaves the individual operating within their own framework of tolerance. But, from the point of view of those whose goals involves some measure of consciousness heightening, if not actual wisdom, there are serious implications to this deference to social mores.........

If I'm supposed to look extra nice for a presentation, or if I'm meeting with a client that I believe expects that a professional appearance includes make-up, I put it on.

And if it included going topless or wearing a clown suit? The point is you elect to agree to a certain mindset. It's not about what you have to do; it's about what you agree to do.

It's kind of like figuring out whether to wear a nice dress or jeans and a T-shirt - just going along with the cultural mores that are supposedly what make us "civilized."

It's our cultural mores that actually make us uncivlised. Deluded and even demented behaviour ought never be characterised as "civilised".

It's silly, but it's harmless enough.

It is much more than merely silly and it is anything but harmless. Most people never really think through the implications of this supposed benigness. It's actually seriously demented behaviour. Just think about it in bare terms for a second: I feel that I have to put this chemical gunk on my eyelashes to be acceptable to someone else. Bottom line, that's what is going on. Seriously, how idiotic is that? And perhaps more to the point, what sort of megalomaniac would actually expect that of another person? When you look deeper into the psychology of it you see a dominance/submission dynamic. The expectation is that you submit to a mere aesthetic preference so as to be acceptable. Your passivity and submission is what is being demanded here; it has nothing to do with your ability to perform a certain task or your willingness to do so. It is far more primal and base than that, and, therefore, uncivilised. When a woman gets a job over a more qualified person because she "made herself up" better, ought we tell the woman who is overlooked that it's all just silly and harmless?

What we're talking about here is pure herd mentality in action. It's psychological servitude; it's the denial of the individual. It's far beyond mere shallowness or superficiality of thought. It's actually something very profound. Our social mores betray us as psychologically deviant (from sanity). Women paint themselves like clowns; men wear suits and that gigantic absurdity, the "tie", all in the name of the herd mentality. To the degree that one conforms to these expectations, one literally ceases to exist as a person. One becomes a part of the Borg. This is not a mentality conducive to anything that involves consciousness, and certainly not to any kind of spiritual awakening. That we think ourselves so sophisticated and yet engage in behaviour whose primitivity is truly startling, just shows how unconscious we really are to our true natures.

What's important is what's on the inside,

I think it was Aristotle who said that only superficial people don't judge by appearances. The outer reflects the inner and the opposite belief to that is merely a form of cognitive dissonance. If you wear a suit and tie or a wheelbarrow load of makeup, for example, you are saying certain things about yourself -- you are a willing member of the herd, whether it be for pragmatic reasons or just the purest unconsciousness.

but there are many shallow people out there that won't look at the inside unless it's wrapped in a pretty package.

Appearance over substance is a pitiable aspect of our culture; however, real substance finds a way to bubble to the surface.

Even the ones that are not so shallow, and maybe consider themselves to not be shallow at all, initially dismiss a whole package that isn't wrapped the way they expect.

Well, I'm not shallow and I often dismiss a whole package on the way it's wrapped. Or, perhaps, more to the point, I dismiss it on the grounds that it is wrapped at all.

To a degree, that goes for guys too. Guys may not have to wear make-up, but they are expected to present a certain appearance depending on the event.

Absolutely. And it is worse in their case because deep down they know the reality and simply rationalise it away.

Some places won't let a guy in unless he is wearing a coat and tie.

And I refuse to have anything to do with such places on principle.

To the other end, I understand one landlord changed his mind about renting to David after his wife saw how he was dressed. How badly did David have to dress to manage that?

Not that badly at all, probably. But then, who'd want a landlord like that anyway?

Society is shallow. Sometimes we have to do harmless shallow stuff for a greater purpose.

What greater purpose can shallow stuff possibly have? It has none because it has no core from which principle or purpose might arise; it is merely flow, like the feminine.

Dan Rowden

Dan just knocked the ball out of the park.

And what he is saying is unquestionably extreme in contrast to the attitude of people/culture in general.

Perhaps he considers what he's saying to be the middle way, but because society is so extreme, he ends up being defined as an extremist, despite he may be an exemplar of a truly balanced human being.

The "middle way" of society (as opposed to the Buddhist Middle Way) is nothing more than the demand for compromise. This is not compromise to society as such - wise people can happily live and function in a society - it is compromise to the herd and its attendant unconsciousness. Any forceful resistence to that, any movement towards the individual and the conscious would certainly be viewed as an extreme. This is partly because that herd literally sees itself as what society truly is. It knows no other perspective because of its very lack of consciousness.

There is "community" (functional, pragmatic, conscious) and there is "community" (psychological, flowie, unconscious). One could say it's up to the individual to decide which kind of community they want, but that question isn't genuinely meaningful because it requires a true individual - one who has risen in consciousness above the herdly and unconscious - to even know the difference.

In effect, once you know Santa is a lie, it's impossible to believe in him anymore.

Elizabeth wrote:

Assume that all four statements are true, but out of the first and second (vanity), one is more true than the other, and out of the third and fourth (ideal), one is more true than the other. Which of the less-true satements is more damaging to believe?

"No, the dress doesn't make you look fat."

"No, it isn't the dress that makes you look fat, it's the extra 30 pounds."

"A sage has the lack of emotion that is associated with wisdom."

"A lack of the intensity of emotion that overpowers wisdom is a sign of a sage."

The fourth statement is the most damaging because it is entirely false; it contains no truth value at all. Wisdom is not a lack of intensity of emotion, it is the absence of it. Why? Because what we refer to as "emotions" arise from a false mental construct. Without the construct, there is no place from which such psychological phenomena can arise.

However, the first two questions are actually damaging in another way: i.e. merely answering them is to pander to feminine vanity and delusion. When a woman asks you about her apperance she doesn't actually care what your opinion is, because in the end she will decide if she looks ok or not. She merely wants to know a) that you're paying attention; b) that you're prepared to lie to make her feel good, and c) that you're paying attention. Apart from that she may just want to know if you're paying attention....

I suspect every husband and boyfriend has experienced the weirdness of being asked how a dress looks, replying that it looks great (and maybe it actually does) and 5 minutes later the woman appearing in a completely different dress saying: "Oh, I decided to wear this one instead." She doesn't need to ask your opinion about the second dress because she's already got the egotistical fix she needed.

Dan Rowden wrote: Because what we refer to as "emotions" arise from a false mental construct.

This may sound like an idiotic question, but I just want to make sure that I really understand the point rather than just think that I do.

Dan, what exactly are we referring to and calling "emotions" here?

Well, firstly, it's anything but an idiotc question. Modernity refers to a whole panoply of phenomena within consciousness these days as "emotions". I'm using it in a largely conventional sense to refer to things like love, hate, fear, jealously, joy - the standard Pandora's Box of egotisms. In essence, any irrational response built on the notion of an inherently existence self that experiences loss/gain, subject/object forms of duality. Basically that which arises from false thinking and delusion.

Dan Rowden wrote:

I think it was Aristotle who said that only superficial people don't judge by appearances.

It was Oscar Wilde.

Dan,

Have you any advice on how to learn to tolerate untruth in society? For instance, you must compromise at least partly in meeting the gov requirements for the dole, or to work for anyone else. Do you hold you tongue a lot down the pub? If you compromise in small ways, are those sort of things truly egoless for you, in the moment, or do you need to rationalise it?

Had you already separated yourself enough from society, in the sense of it no longer constantly being in your face, by the time you considered yourself to be a sage?

Were you ever stupid, as in mild "angry young man" style, or have you always had a naturally calm personality?

Were you sober when you posted that?

Dan Rowden wrote:It is much more than merely silly and it is anything but harmless. Most people never really think through the implications of this supposed benigness. It's actually seriously demented behaviour. Just think about it in bare terms for a second: I feel that I have to put this chemical gunk on my eyelashes to be acceptable to someone else. Bottom line, that's what is going on. Seriously, how idiotic is that?

I remember saying something very much like this to a woman, more than twenty years ago - back in college days. I was pretty naive at the time, because I was surprised that she started crying.

She cried for a while, which I ignored, and then later she apologized for crying.

Actually, considering who I was back then, I must have put it in feminist terms - that a woman putting on makeup is objectifying herself, turning herself into an object, stating that her only value is aesthetic, and so dis-empowering herself; she is declaring herself to be an object rather than a subject.

She disempowered and at the same time empowered herself by crying.