GENIUS FORUMS

dejavu:

What “all things lack inherent existence” means is that a thing does not contain its own causes; a thing is never self-caused. You know, A=A. Reason doesn't cause reason, it is reason. Truth doesn't cause truth, it is truth, etc. Nothing would ever change if all things were self-caused.

It also means, necessarily, that if existence were an inherent quality of all particular things (that is, of each thing in the category “things”) then no thing could ever die (or, cease to exist). This would be a logical impossibility.

The idea that existence is an inherent quality or property of each and all particular things by virtue of their existence is equivalent to the idea that individual consciousness continues after death, since individual consciousness can be defined as a particular thing. It is not the same as saying, plainly, all things in the category things necessarily exist.

It intends to convey a deeper meaning.

So, to the question of a given particular thing existing inherently (such as, say, “an individual consciousness”), that is, an individual consciousness containing existence as a permanent quality/property, what logical proof exists for such a thing?

You’ll find most people who believe in such an idea at least make some infinite, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, life-causing creator god a necessary “thing” to its hoped-for existence in the attempt to explain away its logical deficiencies.

Then, there are the others who entertain the idea that things are self-caused, like “God.” That there is a category of “thing” that can be, at the very same time, both its own cause and its own effect, infinitely. Let’s take the thing “individual consciousness.” What would it mean to understand it as a thing which is both its own cause and its own effect at the same time? All it means is that, as a thing, it contains all its causes and effects and neither causes nor effects anything else, since there necessarily is nothing else than it.

Is that the spiritual freedom life-after-death-ers, believers in inherent existence, purveyors of a continuing individual consciousness after death, so passionately desire? If that's life, define death.

dejavu: A thing is inseparable from its existence certainly, which is why its existence is inherent.

I think all you are saying is that things exist.

When people say things inherently exist, their usual meaning is that things exist on their own, completely independent of any causes. I take it you're not saying that?

Kelly,

When you say "I observe consciousness ceasing in that person", it is likely it does. But when you say "I observe consciousness leaving the body and going somewhere else" that is most likely an over-active imagination.

Not only did I not say this, but I specified that I had not seen it.

Anna wrote:It's cause and effect as far as the eye can see, but our eyes are limited.

Causation is not an empirical but a logical concept.

I am taken aback that you took my phrase literally, as with literal eyes. I meant with the eyes of logic, but when you follow the logic further, you come to a wall. That wall tells you that it is not turtles all the way down. There must be something outside of prior causes, something inherently existent, something self-caused.

You haven't put any thought into your statements or questions, so there's no point in my answering them.

Oh dear, I've been dismissed, and Jehu is on vacation.

Translation: You cannot cope with my arguments.

Kelly, You don't even recognize thought when you see it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dejavu,

but speaking of bizarre ideas, do you truly believe in individual consciousness surviving death?!

Why is it a bizarre idea?

And by the way, it doesn't mean the consciousness is a self-existent or eternal entity. It might be, or its core (pure awareness) might be, but I think this individual consciousness is on a much longer trajectory of evolution than any particular body can offer or sustain.

Anna wrote:Kelly: Things exist because of causation. Can you not see your argument depends on causation?

Anna: No, if it were true, there could be no existence. It's not turtles all the way down. I know your guru says that, and I have recently questioned him on it, but he has not answered. It's cause and effect as far as the eye can see, but our eyes are limited. There must be something quite other, something inherently existing, capable of causing its own existence. There's just no way around it.

Kelly: Causation is not an empirical but a logical concept.

Anna: I meant with the eyes of logic, but when you follow the logic further, you come to a wall. That wall tells you that it is not turtles all the way down. There must be something outside of prior causes, something inherently existent, something self-caused.

So you suppose something causes itself, which is outside of cause and effect?

Anna wrote:At any moment in time, a person makes choices. Their values determine what they choose. These values are learnt. No, I am saying that psychology is more influential in making choices, than biology.

But if what you say is true, then it would not be so that we see such consistent differences between men and women, differences which you insist upon!

Females are biologically setup to bear children, and historically males have defended the family while it is vulnerable. Over hundreds and thousands of years, the family-oriented psychology has become well-ensconced in society. Males prefer to choose, as the family female, one who suits this traditional psychology. Meaning, over many, many years, females have developed a deep familiarity with being emotionally and intellectually dependent on males.

Anna wrote:

Anna wrote:

Kelly wrote:Reducing masculinity or femininity to only the first two sex characters contradicts the evidence that has been around for more than a hundred years.

You'll have to elaborate. What evidence?

I fail to see what relevance the Weininger quote had to the question, nor why you consider it evidence.

It describes the tertiary and quaternary sex characters quite clearly (it describes psychological characters):

As a convenient mode of treatment, and for practical rather than theoretical reasons, certain inherited characters, such as the development of muscular strength or of mental obstinacy may be reckoned as tertiary sexual characters. Under the designation “quaternary sexual characters” may be placed such accessories as relative social position, difference in habit, mode of livelihood, the smoking and drinking habit in man, and the domestic duties of women. All these characters possess a potent and direct sexual influence, and in my opinion often may be reckoned with the tertiary characters or even with the secondary. This classification of sexual characters must not be taken as implying a definite chain of sequence, nor must it be assumed that the mental sexual characters either determine the bodily characters or are determined by them in some causal nexus. The classification relates only to the strength of the exciting influence on the other sex, to the order in time in which this influence is exerted, and to the degree of certainty with which the extent of the influence may be predicted.

You are not, as yet, a thinker.

Because my thoughts do not agree with yours. Yet I have so many original ideas, and yours are all regurgitated QRS, mostly Q.

Truth is Truth. It doesn't change or become original.

You do not know what the true self is. You hate it, by denying it.

You make such remarks, yet if you know what the true self is, why didn't you explain it?

I've explained it several times already:

Here:

The ego is based on the belief in the false self, holds to a falsity "that things intrinsically exist". By its nature, it desires connection with other things beyond itself.

and here:

When a person doesn't love the false self, having reasoned that things don't inherently exist, then they are liberated to experience everything as themselves, literally.

and here:

There is no emotion in this love, because there is no desire, because there is nothing to desire.

My current understanding of enlightenment, is not so much an intellection, as experiencing that one is connected to the All, transcending ego in a real way, not by struggle and exertion to an idea.

Only one who has no doubts, and whose understanding is perfect, has seen the essence of Mind. That you speak of your "current understanding" means you have some way to go. If you reply that you have no doubts, then you have even further to go.

Anna wrote:

Kelly wrote:

Anna wrote:But reality does inherently exist, only the apparent forms within it that are mutable and dependent upon conditions do not inherently exist.

Within what? Forms within a container? I've already explained how co-dependency rules out inherent existence.

But the whole thing inherently exists.

Are the "apparent forms within" dependent on the container "reality"? Is reality dependent on things? This means neither inherently exist. And what about inherent existence: is it also dependent for its reality on non-inherent existence?

Anna wrote:By soul, I am referring to the consciousness within, and that which departs the body at death ...... I have not myself observed a soul, except once in a dream ..... If you died the day you were born, you had a consciousness within that either ceased or left your body, and if you die today, same thing.

I asked "Are you absolutely certain of this? Or is this a hypothesis, based on observable evidence?" to which you replied:

There are few things I am absolutely certain of. I do know the difference. Ahem. But it is my working hypothesis based on the preponderance of evidence. Observable? I have not myself observed a soul, except once in a dream,

The first obvious problem is that you had one single observation in a dream. That is not preponderance of evidence. You should therefore see that your hypothesis that there is such thing as a soul (which you also call consciousness) is extremely weak.

But you pile rubbish on rubbish when you say - as if it is a reliable truth, note - "If you died the day you were born, you had a consciousness within that either ceased or left your body, and if you die today, same thing." - because you have virtually no evidence at all.

Anna wrote:

Kelly wrote:Everything an individual experiences is everything occurring in their consciousness. All they know of other consciousnesses is evidence within their own consciousness. However, they need not fall into solipsism, because they can reason that consciousness is bounded by something that never appears to consciousness. Within that something, are all other consciousnesses.

What???

I didn't think that had occurred to you.


KJ

Dejavu,

I'm defining a cause as "something necessary for a thing to exist". (Noting, of course, a thing's existence is not separate to the thing).

This definition means that a cause is not the same as the thing. They are separate. This means, a thing is always finite.

A thing is short of everything else.

What is not the thing is everything else.

What is not the thing is its cause/s.

Do you see that a cause for a thing is by definition everything else?

Kelly -

Ever think of spicing up the vernacular? Stone cold logic blues over here.

Sure thang baby!

A thought on language.

You've got to give Gotama credit for creating such a hopelessly pseudo-poetic, and pseudo-intellectual religion, stuffed to the gills with fantasticals who live far from the source. He spun billions of categories simply to reinforce their commonality, but his descendants became enthralled with exacting how these categories specifically interrelate! He effused on the extraordinarily, mind-blowingly beautiful lands of Nirvana, arrived at when one "departs life", but his descendants are certain that the faithful practitioners arrives there after the death of the bodily organism! Whatever ideas and concepts and images one uses as metaphors to describe Truth, that is what the ignorant grasp hold of - creating Truth into something.

If I am dry, it is only because I'm trying to wring out the soppy, bloated minds of people dying from wetness.

Hi Kelly,

So you suppose something causes itself, which is outside of cause and effect?

Yes, although it would be better to use different words. Since causing implies a 'before." There is something inherently existent, whose attribute is that it has the ability to self-exist.

Females are biologically setup to bear children, and historically males have defended the family while it is vulnerable. Over hundreds and thousands of years, the family-oriented psychology has become well-ensconced in society. Males prefer to choose, as the family female, one who suits this traditional psychology. Meaning, over many, many years, females have developed a deep familiarity with being emotionally and intellectually dependent on males.

While true enough, it ignores that nature has gone along with this situation, step for step. Women and men are different. Their bodies are different, and their brains are different, and their motives and rewards are different. I wonder if you, as well as Pye, have read that essay I mentioned, that was posted here recently and to which I linked. One of the most interesting among his interesting observations, is that most women pass on their genes, and something like half of men do - men who take risks are more likely to pass on their genes (although I also think he exaggerated that a little) and women who risk are less likely to pass on their genes. And, further, some of the men who pass on their genes do it spectacularly, by having a huge number of children, something which is out of reach for women.

It don't get more basic than that. Now about those newborns, and their different preferences...

But hey, Kelly, if you think I am arguing that women can't achieve enlightenment, or be highly rational and courageous, I'm not.

It describes the tertiary and quaternary sex characters quite clearly (it describes psychological characters):

Yes, but so what. You never made a point with it. Anyway, I have lost the original argument.

Truth is Truth. It doesn't change or become original.

Regurgitated truth is never truth whether true or not, because the person espousing it has not made it their own. Each person must understand anew, must almost come to the realization as if for the first time. I hope that is what you are doing.

I've explained it several times already:
Here:
The ego is based on the belief in the false self, holds to a falsity "that things intrinsically exist". By its nature, it desires connection with other things beyond itself.

and here:
When a person doesn't love the false self, having reasoned that things don't inherently exist, then they are liberated to experience everything as themselves, literally.

So that speaks to the false self. You mentioned a true self.

There is no emotion in this love, because there is no desire, because there is nothing to desire.

So you have stated that all emotion is of desire.
And what is this love, what is it like and how does it work? If it isn't a feeling of any sort, is it a thought, or what?

Only one who has no doubts, and whose understanding is perfect, has seen the essence of Mind. That you speak of your "current understanding" means you have some way to go. If you reply that you have no doubts, then you have even further to go.

I do not have a firm conviction about enlightenment, and I think there may be more than one type. And, I think that many people talk about it, like shouting from rooftops in a storm.

Are the "apparent forms within" dependent on the container "reality"? Is reality dependent on things? This means neither inherently exist. And what about inherent existence: is it also dependent for its reality on non-inherent existence?

These are actually good questions, and I was working on them with Jehu, but he has abandoned me for a time. I hope he's alright.

The forms are dependent on the container, and the container seems to be dependent upon the contents, but I have some reservations about that.

But they would both inherently exist together. There is something beneath this interdependent interplay - and I call that something Existence Itself.

It would not be dependent upon anything, but if the non-inherent things are always there, then it means that they are a natural attribute of the Existent thing.

The first obvious problem is that you had one single observation in a dream. That is not preponderance of evidence. You should therefore see that your hypothesis that there is such thing as a soul (which you also call consciousness) is extremely weak.

I never said that the preponderance of evidence consisted of my one dream! Why did you even think it? As for my dream, I do not know what category to put it into. It was a vision given to me by an angelic being in response to my sincere and long inquiry into a spiritual matter.

But you pile rubbish on rubbish when you say - as if it is a reliable truth, note -"If you died the day you were born, you had a consciousness within that either ceased or left your body, and if you die today, same thing." - because you have virtually no evidence at all.

Whether or not it leaves the body at death, there is quite obviously a consciousness within you and within all living things, which when it ceases, the body becomes as an inert mass no different than a rock or a pile of dirt. It's like turning off a light bulb.

Everything an individual experiences is everything occurring in their consciousness. All they know of other consciousnesses is evidence within their own consciousness. However, they need not fall into solipsism, because they can reason that consciousness is bounded by something that never appears to consciousness. Within that something, are all other consciousnesses.

What???

I didn't think that had occurred to you.

Don't be like Leyla. Explain yourself when asked. You didn't think what had occurred to me? The final two sentences are too cryptic. I don't know what you are saying.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dejavu,

but speaking of bizarre ideas, do you truly believe in individual consciousness surviving death?!

Why is it a bizarre idea?

And by the way, it doesn't mean the consciousness is a self-existent or eternal entity. It might be, or its core (pure awareness) might be, but I think this individual consciousness is on a much longer trajectory of evolution than any particular body can offer or sustain.

Yeah, yeah.

Logic needs some imagination, though.

Iolaus wrote:

It describes the tertiary and quaternary sex characters quite clearly (it describes psychological characters):

Yes, but so what. You never made a point with it. Anyway, I have lost the original argument.

I can wait until you remember. Then we can proceed with this discussion, since the original argument is the argument.

Perhaps it would help if you concentrated on one idea, and cut back on the number of discussions you are involved in.

Recapitulating:
You argued that women love babylike things because of their biology. I disagreed that women do this because of their biology per se, but moreso because of what they value (their psychology). So my argument is that psychology is sexually differentiable. You disagreed that psychology has masculine or feminine components. I provided Weininger's account of same.

Our discussion of causation is a sidetrack, not the main argument, that stems from your additional (I would say unnecessary) statement that women are granted by virtue of their (psychopathic) love of babies, the ability to see the "ultimate reality" of insignificant things. Your point was, or is, that women are biologically gifted a freedom from the main spiritual blockage (egotism). You then revealed "ultimate reality" to mean "soul" (aka "consciousness", aka "inner life", aka "personality") . You then revealed that you had only one observation, in a dream, of "soul", rather than a preponderance of evidence. I disagreed with your notion of soul, stating that it was the false self, entailing belief in the inherent existence of things. We are now looking at causation to reveal why things do not inherently exist.

It is up to you which argument you wish to focus on, since both lines help to illustrate sexually distinct psychologies. You can at any time rescind your argument that women are spiritually gifted by nature of their biology, which I think is in your interests to do.

I don't like going in circles, don't know about you. Would you mind going back to answer this question:

dejavu: A thing is inseparable from its existence certainly, which is why its existence is inherent.

Kelly: I think all you are saying is that things exist.

When people say things inherently exist, their usual meaning is that things exist on their own, completely independent of any causes. I take it you're not saying that?

Dejavu wrote

What do you imagine causes existence but existence?

Something self-caused still requires an opposite, otherwise there could be no differentiation, no manifestation of form.

If existence is a fundamental form, as it can only be, then it must itself be differentiated.

How can this occur? By plus and minus existence. Nothing else logically fits.

Existence is inherent.

That it is. So are causes. Existence = Causes, the set of + and - causes. Plus existence is existence expanding itself, dualistically interwoven with Minus existence decreasing itself. This process is causality - the continuous power of the universe.

The problem with the terms expansion and contraction is that they are spatial terms and the existences as the things-in-themselves, precede dimensions. You need to just think of these opposite existences as being only of the nature of having the continuous power of expansion OR contraction, and not of having a physical existence - that latter form of existence manifests as a result of infinitely relative continuous expansion AND contraction.

All things of form consist entirely of space, and space, though infinite, does not exist as a thing-in-itself. Space is a non-self-caused thing, an effect that is everywhere, produced by the eternal stillness of the eternally existing all-dimensional plane of absolute separation between the two fundamental forms of existence - a separation logically existent in that neither can be the other, but can only cause the other. If neither can be the other, then by default there always exists that which is neither - the difference being that it is always only an outcome, and has no self-existence.

The absolute stillness of space has another aspect (as all caused things do) and we refer to this aspect as Time, and space becomes more accurately described by Einstein as Spacetime. Time is the speed of changing form measured against the fundamental Stillness.


The term "all-dimensional" used above essentially just signifies existence geometrically folded 2 to the power of infinity-1, where infinity decreases by instantaneously and continuously "folding" into itself from one infinite Space form to an infinity of ever decreasing lesser folds "sizewise", but with an ever increasingly number of such folds, an ever increasing number of separated but alike things are created.

What is this "folding". Folding is a layer of insidedness to outsidedness resulting from the fact that, spatially, something decreasing must and can only decrease inside or within something expanding. Causal Infinity resides at the centre of everything, and physically everything is at the centre of an infinite universe. Each fold is a new dimension. Forms that exist in wave form are observable types of dimensions (but hardly anyone would view them that way, though its actually why they exist in infinite spectrum form, unlike objects).

"All-dimensional" however also means that when the universe folds in on itself, then it also unfolds in an opposite manner. With each fold causal relativity increases exponentially. At the same time as it folds in, the outcome of each fold, folds out into another outcome. And this we call "evolving". Eg, a lesser-folded radiation wave folds into a more folded String or whatever, then up to an electron, atom, planet, galaxy right up to the realm of a universal infinity of which we know not. Well except that at the non-existent (as is impossible except relatively speaking), "pointy end of infinity" it must be the "flowing to" point for the expansion of the spatially related power of the contracting force as a dualistic mirror image of the contraction of the spatially related power of the expansionary force - hence the causation of each other.

dejavu wrote:This is where we understand inherency differently. A things ceasing to exist does not change the fact of its existence.

To be really clear, "a thing's ceasing to exist does not change the fact of its existence" means:

a) a thing continues to exist after it ceases existing; or
b) a thing's ceasing to exist does not change the fact of it having existed; or
c) some other, unknown and poorly expressed idea.

Then you're more of an idiot than I supposed, since nothing I have said is contrary to it---in fact, it affirms it.

I think you're too excited to give it any real thought, however.

You may think me an idiot, but I know you're not,...

Faith in what is right is always a good start, even if accidental. Now, take that good dose of well-invested faith and...

...even if you do think existence is caused by non-existence lol

...disabuse yourself of this idea by thinking about what I have written.

Thanks for answering my question, dejavu.

dejavu: A thing is inseparable from its existence certainly, which is why its existence is inherent.

Kelly: I think all you are saying is that things exist. When people say things inherently exist, their usual meaning is that things exist on their own, completely independent of any causes. I take it you're not saying that?

dejavu: No I'm not saying that. I'm saying the whole of existence is self-caused, in other words, inherent. The idea which you brought up, namely that the universe is caused by what it is not, can safely be dropped I think, or dashed to the floor, it's up to you :)

The issue I'm spotting in your line of thinking is in imagining all things to be separate to the Universe, dejavu.

Imagine a pie, fresh out of the oven in all its aromatic glory. It hasn't been cut up yet. No slices, no bites, no mental divisions. This is an analogy for absolutely everything - the Universe, the Infinite. This is how Reality always is. Lots of interesting 'stuff' in the pie, if you like, but it is whole and undivided.

Now, if we imagine or actually cut a slice out, then there is that slice, and the rest of the pie. Now we have "thing" and "rest of pie". Now we have causal relationships. But it would not be accurate to say that the slice of pie causes the whole pie, nor that the pie causes the slice. Only when the pie is cut up into pieces, are there actual pieces.

This is how the Universe, or the Infinite, is. There is no sense of talking of causation when there is only one. It is not causing itself, because it has never come into existence. Existence is a relative notion, you see. A thing exists relative to something else.

However, when there are things, then there is causation.

I'm guessing that's Dan.

On second thoughts, regarding dejavu being Dan, I think it is more likely to have been chance at play.

I was ignoring two rather conspicuous pieces of evidence......:

- I've been thinking deeply about 'stellar' love recently, and I understood dejavu's poem to be about this (it may or may not be).

- Prompted by dejavu's questions, I remembered that the Infinite cannot come into existence. It was late last night, and I was tired, so my thought was quickly contaminated by elation. When tired, my brain makes those dreadful and crazy dreamstate associations. Being tired, the thought took on emotional content, portraying the insight as supernatural, and assuming some preternatural psychic force is at work. Since my ego desires me to share any overwhelming thoughts (ie. dump them on others to get rid of responsibility for them), the tired brain concluded that I must already be sharing these thoughts psychically with others who are capable of them. It's rather fascinating, fascinatingly awful, and definitely something to stop doing.

My apologies to Dan, and dejavu.


KJ

Kelly,

You argued that women love babylike things because of their biology. I disagreed that women do this because of their biology per se, but moreso because of what they value (their psychology). So my argument is that psychology is sexually differentiable. You disagreed that psychology has masculine or feminine components. I provided Weininger's account of same.

I argued that what they value is in large measure an outgrowth of their biology, and most specially of their brains. And you, on another thread, posted that Brainsex link, which exactly makes that point. My point.

I don't know what you mean that I disagreed that psychology has masculine and feminine components. You are often too lazy to explain your thoughts. I know they are there, but you assume others should know them via ESP.

Our discussion of causation is a sidetrack, not the main argument, that stems from your additional (I would say unnecessary) statement that women are granted by virtue of their (psychopathic) love of babies, the ability to see the "ultimate reality" of insignificant things. Your point was, or is, that women are biologically gifted a freedom from the main spiritual blockage (egotism). You then revealed "ultimate reality" to mean "soul" (aka "consciousness", aka "inner life", aka "personality") . You then revealed that you had only one observation, in a dream, of "soul", rather than a preponderance of evidence. I disagreed with your notion of soul, stating that it was the false self, entailing belief in the inherent existence of things. We are now looking at causation to reveal why things do not inherently exist.

It is flabbergasting that you misconstrue what I have said, even post clarification. I think it is deliberate, and not from lack of intelligence.

Now, if someone says that loving babies, and especially by the caretakers upon whose survival they depend, is psychopathic, then I know I am in a conversation with someone that has severe emotional disturbance, and further discussion will be fruitless.
Ditto for someone who insists that human consciousness is an insignificant thing.

Your point was, or is, that women are biologically gifted a freedom from the main spiritual blockage (egotism).

They seem more gifted in a specific aspect of egotism, that of not quite seeing that others are real.

). You then revealed "ultimate reality" to mean "soul" (aka "consciousness", aka "inner life", aka "personality") .

I most certainly did not, but you said to drop it so I did. My use of the words ultimate reality in that particular sentence was not the best choice, and it confused you. I did not mean to imply that the soul is ultimate reality. I was simply trying to convey the searing intensity of experiential knowledge that another consciousness that resides in another body than one's own is looking out from those eyes and experiencing the world as an "I" An obvious truth that we all know in our heads, but is quite something else again when you really experience it.

There are whole other groups who discuss enlightenment, and they say things like "there are no others." This would be a key experience on the way to that sort of enlightenment.

You then revealed that you had only one observation, in a dream, of "soul", rather than a preponderance of evidence.

If you do this again, I won't speak to you for a very long time. Go back and reread what I said. This is inexcusable. Stop it.

I disagreed with your notion of soul, stating that it was the false self, entailing belief in the inherent existence of things.

You didn't really, you equated the false self with ego, which is not necessarily the same thing.
I do not think souls need be inherently existent. Awareness may be.

And why did you decline to clarify your refutation of solipsism?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dejavu,

There would be no point to consciousness without a body. There would be no reason for its continuation

Well, that is certainly an odd take on things. I don't believe I have heard it before. It still would not mean souls don't leave bodies - they can reincarnate. And why must the body be this extremely dense and heavy one?

Iolaus wrote:

You argued that women love babylike things because of their biology. I disagreed that women do this because of their biology per se, but moreso because of what they value (their psychology). So my argument is that psychology is sexually differentiable. You disagreed that psychology has masculine or feminine components. I provided Weininger's account of same.

I argued that what they value is in large measure an outgrowth of their biology, and most specially of their brains. And you, on another thread, posted that Brainsex link, which exactly makes that point. My point.

Moir and Jessel's "Brain Sex" was written to refute the popular opinion that there is no scientific foundation for the notion that men and women think and perceive the world differently, but only a socialising foundation. I'm not disputing that there are biological differences in the brain, and that these have an enormous influence on values. However, this is not the entire story.

I don't know what you mean that I disagreed that psychology has masculine and feminine components. You are often too lazy to explain your thoughts. I know they are there, but you assume others should know them via ESP.

Well, I'll try to explain. That is, assuming that you don't think that psychology (values, motivations, attitudes, basic worldview) is sexually differentiable into generally masculine and feminine components.

Brains have evolved, and the brain-types existing today generally have all the potential capabilities necessary for coping with a complex social system. Over thousands of years, the species that could generally be called human, developed social laws to ensure their cooperation as a group. Naturally, those individuals who operated by pure biological instinct (have sex with anything remotely suitable, take whatever they wanted to have, kill whatever or whoever they pleased) undermined the survival chances of the tribe. Knowing this, we developed laws to override our biology. We had a severe and immediate capital punishment system to deal with numerous offences (check out The Code of Hammurabi). That was our way of teaching ourselves to value. We used an extremely strong disincentive to not learning, and we wiped out the genes of those unwilling to learn.

But despite thousands of years, we still struggle with that learning. Part of our unwillingness is probably genetic: we can usually abide by social rules rather than always give-into our biological instincts, but each of us is still strongly capable of resisting any particular laws. So, we developed a certain kind of psychology - the ability and desire to learn, the readiness to emulate others, a strong dislike for standing-out from the crowd, and so forth - but also, to an extent, an ability to dissimulate rather than comply per se.

Some kinds of social learnings are more ingrained than others, because they have provided the individual with greater chances of survival. For example, there is a much stronger tendency for females to seek social connection; they are greatly rewarded by their willingness to nurture group cohesion, by being granted personal security. Females can still learn new ways of fulfilling that need, such as, if they very strongly value a certain kind of connection, and it never appears during their lifetime, then it may be possible that they learn to live their entire lives without any connection. Males tend to seek new knowledge; they are disposed to exploring independently and dominating new domains; this tendency is also greatly rewarded by society, because it helps defend and fend for the women and children. While these distinct psychologies are ingrained, there is much room for individual difference. The way the sexes are neurologically setup determines to a huge degree how they will develop in life; nonetheless, it leaves room for learning. So the biological setup is not the entire story; learning is also part of the brain.

Take the prostitute as an example of this process at work. The deep biological instinct for sex had to be permitted, for obvious reasons. But with a caveat: children had to be cared-for properly. So, in order not to confuse ourselves, we encouraged the sex instinct but sanctified the marriage bond. Hence, prostitutes became a legal and necessary part of human society. It was a way of teaching ourselves to deal with sexuality more intelligently. That was a psychological step, and relatively well-ingrained.

KJ

OK, that is reasonable enough.

Does it also seem reasonable to you that the human female's need to connect with others is a more fundamental psychological trait than, and therefore what influences most, her love of babies and babylike things ?

Does it also seem reasonable to you that the human female's need to connect with others is a more fundamental psychological trait than, and therefore what influences most, her love of babies and babylike things

No. In relation to evolution a need to love babies is an older trait. A female's marginally more instinctual need to connect with others is a more recently developed trait, and I suspect it relates to women being left with time consuming duties, whilst the males were "away hunting" or generally just dominating women as a result of their own laziness in having to partake in menial tasks.

As the weaker physical sex, then they also would have developed more intense desires for herdliness - a ganging up against the head male primate.

whatever...in relation to traits surviving species change, the first is hundreds of millions of years old, and the other millions of years old. What is buried deepest is more fundamental.

On the other hand, in an era wherein Maslows survival and security needs are not paramount, then yes, social needs will be desired more greatly, and discretionary female herdly activity will be more dominant.

Take the prostitute as an example of this process at work. The deep biological instinct for sex had to be permitted, for obvious reasons. But with a caveat: children had to be cared-for properly.

Interesting that you mention that. Immediately prior to visiting this forum the last thing I read was

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Home ... geId=1.1.1

Jamesh wrote:No. In relation to evolution a need to love babies is an older trait. A female's marginally more instinctual need to connect with others is a more recently developed trait, and I suspect it relates to women being left with time consuming duties,

Well, you could be right. I'm not sure, myself. I've observed many lambs, kittens, pups, calves and so forth, neglected by their natural mothers and looked after by surrogate parents (such as myself while growing up on a farm). I've observed that parents teach children of both sexes to be careful around the baby sibling, of which the child is usually jealous and ready to harm. I do think that animals will tend to ignore their young, unless they can identify the vulnerability of the young; that's why ewes are usually shorn in winter.

What I'm thinking is that only when mothers themselves identify as being vulnerable and weak, in some sense, do they become capable of caring or exploiting that state in others. In other words, that instinctive need to connect with others and feel safe in a group, is the main sense of security and strength. When it is diminished or weakened, they know what it feels like to be vulnerable. It is a basic, animal sense. But why they choose to go and look after the weak party is the interesting step in the process.

Here is my hypothesis: the evidence suggests that female humans have been in tribal groups for thousands of years. Their raison d'etre was a sturdy rank within the social pecking order. We only need study primate groups to confirm this. If the connection is broken, and they are cast out into the cold, they are quick to abandon the baby, which does not belong to them, but to a male within the group. The baby is a symbol of their status in the group; what level of acceptance they have achieved.

So where we're going with this: that need for connection is a very deep, I would say, instinct in women. It is her means to survival and safety. It is the strongest sign of her psychology.

[edited: changed "Anna" to "James"]

KJ