Words triggering emotions, always come up when dealing with Nihilists, of the modern ilk: "love", is always one. Another is..."truth".
Not truth as in opinion, perspective, that is more or less objective, or superior/inferior, but "truth" as in absolute...as in 1/0. The patronizing conclusion follows...as in offering salvation which is rejected, and then "the hell with them" literally...."hell". Reality now the "hell" their absolutions save them and anyone who will follow the "truth", will submit to their "love". Biblical metaphors, all around. Abrahamic methodologies....from Judaism all the way to secular humanism.....from Biblical word-code, as in God=word, taken literally, to the mathematical binary code replacing good/evil with 1/0, positive/negative, again literally taken.
Condemnation to "hell" is the exclusion of what disrupts the internal harmony of the dream-scapes...the Matrix cells. What is cast out, to "hell" is reality itself: fluidity, flux. What does not assimilated into the code is exorcized.
The "hell" reinforces the "paradise/utopia" being built within the paradigm the code constructs - its self-referential truth, its harmonizing, assimilating love.
The uncertainty of the Flux, of increasing randomness, is excluded from the internalized certitude, the absolutes being built and supported noetically. within its codified walls all is healed, corrected, logical, explained, predictable...it has an underlying universal purpose, reason(ing). The "mind of god" no longer word, because these always imply subjectivity, but numbers, where objectivity can be associated with abstraction, circumventing the obvious emotional components.
First came the number, no longer the word. Things have progresses, new language has been discovered. Science merging with spiritual nihilism. And like the "word of god" it can be read metaphorically, ro literally...or either/or, as the situation demands.
Creationism has morphed. Pascal's wager still applies. "You will regret it" it warns. The "day of reckoning is upon us".
Schopenhauer's...
Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
...adopted for religious purposes; supporting Nihilistic ends.
Ridicule, as with Christians, is only a testing of their faith, their commitment to the all-saving, all-encompassing, code. They await the coming of the "self-evident" phase, when salvation will come. But who is "violently opposing" this reincarnation of Judeo-Christian nihilism, when ti so beautifully proves the connection with modern secular humanism? What's in a name, or a number? Call it 1 or some multiple of it, or a 0, it remains a reference to the same Parmenidian absolute...a reference to a noetic abstraction with no reference outside of the mind.
They are holding vigil, their faith holding strong, as they spread the "word" the numerical beauty of noetic symmetry...the internal logic of a brain evolved to harvest and to construct it. They endure the scorn, as those early Christians did in the catacombs....secretly spreading the gospel. That which will save mankind has been entrusted to their "genius", and they must preserve it until the time comes when they will be vindicated.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Varda is surprised gendy isn't banned....and neither is she. HA!!!
She thinks of herself as a gendy-type....I did smell the imitation.
What did The Marquis say about her?
Checkout sciforums where our phonee, once more, tries to "out" Lyssa, hoping she'll go away...knowing that with her around, just as when gendy was there, she disappears.
Ha!!!
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I hear they've cured cancer on ILP, and discovered the fabric of reality....too bad they have yet to discover the mathematical algorithm for retardation. It would be a case of self-valueing.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
It's inhuman how "brilliant" this mind is. No, it is not brilliant itself...it is a reflection of the divine, brilliance of one. A mere representation of the universal mind.
How so many geniuses can fit into one Forum is miraculous. Who shall stand-out in the uniformity? Who shall be the hive mind's cerebral cortex, the frontal lobes, the Will, directing them all towards final salvation?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Arditezza
Gender : Posts : 274 Join date : 2014-11-20 Age : 52 Location : Midwest
Jesus, fuckin', Christ...have I not been saying [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for about a decade? No, when he says it it's uniquely brilliant....
Is he regurgitating Satyr or...no wait....same ol' Nietzsche...his male mate?
No...he says "lingerie", and not "mask"...so he's scot free. Like a push-up bra is not a mask....because it exposes, pushes into (re)cognition the breasts, by pushing them forth, rather than hiding them.
Manipulation is the intellectual form of physical bullying (Yes some manipulation is more benign) -
By bullying I assume you mean an effective expression of strength, in which case manipulation is only one way to intellectually bully.
Quote :
and in fact often results in physical force being brought into play when a manipulated person gets angry and wants some form of retribution. The manipulator, in this hypothetical example, then has to either undo what was done, or use physical means to back down the target of the manipulation.
Unless they're in a place with laws against violence, in which case your scenario, while certainly not unheard of, is not the norm.
Quote :
I would submit a rational person wants to exist in a social environment with honest people, who are sufficient critical thinkers - which would eliminate the sheep and the wolves.
I believe we have a different view on which people are rational, but we probably would both agree that rational people are people with a reasonably high intellect who can think with a clear head unclouded by emotions. So with that definition as a start, we may ask how is it that people become rational?
The person must have had the stress to become rational. Meaning that rather than reality allowing him to live in a comfortable fantasy world where most mistakes he makes can be corrected, he at least to a certain extent had to face it with a clear head so as to make effective decisions to survive.
Another situation which requires stress is the evolution of intellect to begin with. Man developed his intellect to deal with a difficult environment.
We now have established rationality as a product of stress in both one's ancestors' lives and one's own.
Wolves are more rational animals than most prey, which enables them to effectively hunt even quick undomesticated animals such as deer. Firstly a wolf surrounded by sheep, would likely take the easier prey, not nessesarily wishing for more difficult prey, and therefore he'd no longer need to use his intellect or other wolves to hunt.
So it's true, he would avoid most other wolves if he could. But not entirely, especially when it came to mating, in which case he would not want to mate with a slow dog-like wolf unable to hunt faster prey than sheep, because he wouldn't want his children to become reliant on sheep, should the day come when they would need to hunt faster prey.
So no, the rare, modern, but rational man - a wolf among sheep - doesn't wish to eliminate sheep nor other wolves.
Painfully Common Everyday Wumpus wrote:
People love being lied to, and hate the truth. The only reason they get out of joint when they find out they've been lied to is because the lie has ceased to function. And they'll be no more angry than they would have been if you'd told the unpalatable truth from the start. I know, because I've tried it both ways.
They're happy as long as you keep the con. They want to be deceived. They want to believe the lie.
And if they can manage to go into denial, they won't even get angry when the lie is exposed. They'll reject the exposure to hold on to belief in what they know is a lie.
So if I wanted to be on your good side I would tell you that you were once endowed with some specially gift of nobility and honesty that was out of place in modern society, rather than telling you that you were a dull sheep tricked into believing there was a social karma that went beyond the real pragmatc effects of known reputation. And unlike most sheep you bothered to try to put the deception fully into practice, and therebye seeing it's impossibility quickly fell into another deception used to keep cattle under control, that of incapacitating hatred for yourself and others.
A culture nurtures/represses natural human drives... it sublimates them, but it does not create them.
This is true of all types of manipulation, or training, or whatever you want to call it when behavior is directed. For example, marketing does not create need in the individual, it directs it or manipulates an already existing need, connecting a product, a symbol, a color a fashion style, with this need. A con-artist, or a hypnotist, does not magically alter the others thinking, he exploits what is already present in the other - the individual wants to be convinced, to be hypnotized, and this "artist" establishes trust, or makes the other comfortable enough to allow what is there to come forth.
Therefore, gender is not a construct out of nowhere and nothing. It is a sexual proclivity, nurtured over centuries of natural selection (evolution), resulting in a specialized behavior, and in physical/mental attributes that facilitate this role. Culture simply connects these predispositions with symbols: words, clothing, forms, colors, styles, rituals, and so on.
In short...what meme is to gene, noumenon to phenomenon, gender is to sexual roles.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
We have now discovered another truth, using mathematics.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...
Crazy wrote:
Nicely done. Did you also notice there are 26 letters in the alphabet?
Presumably God is an English speaker, or French. Mind-blowing, indeed. I would have thought he spoke Hebrew or Greek, but no the numbers show that he is, in fact, an anglophone. Greek alphabet has 24 letters. Not holy enough. But I'm sure some combination will be found to explain why there are 24, and not 25.
Don't know how many scribbles the Hebrew alphabets has.
Ah, the young....to be forever 26. God the youthful 26 year-old prankster.
We have mathematical evidence that the universe is built on an Anglo-Saxon/Norman mindset. This is comforting because now I know that my prayers, although never answered, were, at least, understood by the almighty. He was ignoring me.
Though, I do have my doubts - forgive me Lord - and He may very well only speak and think in morse code....beep, beeeep, beep, beep, beep beeep....
I bet they can find all kinds of juicy patterns in this sequence...
Wait, God, the Universe, is sending me a message... Yes Lord, I'm open to your incoming divine words...speak to me....
F....U....C....K....Y....O....U What can it mean? I must break it down mathematically, using my Lord's alphabet...
F = 6 U = 21....2+1=3 C = 3 K = 11...1+1=2
The pause is the place-holding 0. God's deep breathe. We'll skip that...
Y = 25...2+5=7 O = 15...1+5=6 U = 21...2+1=3
We always add because we must remain positive thinkers.
So...6+3+3+2+7+6+3 =...wait let me get my calculator, working on the binary system...
30!!! 3+0=3
Wait let me try a different way... 6+21+3+11+25+15+21= 102 1+0+2=3 AGAIN!!!
His message is 30, which is really 3. The male sex organs are three...2 testicles, corresponding to the mother and the holy ghost, and the penis, the shaft, which is, obviously the Almighty one. Isn't it clear? He is giving me the shaft, and his balls are clapping with positive joy, slapping, against my cheeks...which, not coincidentally, are also two. He is raping me...or making Love to me...fertilizing me.
Wait...wait....there must be more to this... If I take the three and invert it, positive/negative, we get the three-epsilon, inscribed in Delphi....if we connect the symbols we get an 8 8 is the symbol of infinity...
The 8th letter in the Greek alphabet is theta...in the English one it is H. H is the symbol of Pisces, and theta is written in Greek as θ which is 8...and is the first letter in the word theos...God This is getting freaky.
All Pisces are gods...Satyr was born in February and is a Pisces...he is divine. Can it be more obvious?
Okay, let's take this all the way to where it is taking us...to the END, as it were.
My anus is almost a perfect sphere, my human imperfections notwithstanding. A sphere is a 0. My crack is lime a diving line ascross this circle. It is Pi....Pi = 3.14... 3.1+4
3 morse code (dot) 5
3+5= 8!!!! My crack is the infinite divide of an infinite divine sphere. This is freaking me out. I am a genius!!!
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
We have now discovered another truth, using mathematics.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...presumably God is an English speaker, or French.
Mind-blowing, indeed. I would have thought he spoke Hebrew or Greek, but no the numbers show that he is, in fact, an anglophone. Greek alphabet has 24 letters. Don't know how many scribbles the Hebrew alphabets has.
We have mathematical evidence that the universe is built on an Anglo-Saxon/Norman mindset. This is comforting because now I know that my prayers, although never answered, were, at least, understood by the almighty.
Though, I do have my doubts - forgive me Lord, and He may only talk in morse code....beep, beeeep, beep, beep, beep beeep....
You cannot feel shameless about it, when you have authority figures to back it up. Jung commissioned a Marie von Franz to make J.-Xt. more marketable to those suffering from indigestion with its other-worldy crudities. You could no longer sell it the way it was after enlightenment. It had to be revised - scientifi-ed, so people can feel good about never admitting what depraved hedonists they are. They can swallow "In the Beginning was the Word" with an "intellectual conscience" now. Christ is a 'principle', not a person, and it becomes scientific and respectable.
The Nazi fringe had a "White Christianity" thing going - Jesus as gentile version and they had the gnostic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Marie von Franz is like the scientific, respectable version of Blavatsky.
One of Marie's most influential work is one called [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"A third field of interest and research was about synchronicity, psyche and matter, and numbers. It seems to have been triggered by Jung, whose research had lead him to the hypothesis about the unity of the psychic and material worlds, i.e., that they are one and the same, just different manifestations. He also believed that this concept of the unus mundus could be investigated by means of researching archetypes. Due to his advanced age, he turned the problem over to von Franz. Two of her books, Number and Time and Psyche and Matter deal with this research. In 1968, von Franz was the first to argue that the mathematical structure of DNA is analogous to that of the I Ching. She cited the I Ching in an essay, Symbols of the Unus Mundus, published in her book Psyche and Matter.
How collective unconscious compensates the one-sidedness of Christianity – this was a basic concern throughout many of her works, not only about fairytales and alchemy, which often compensate or complete the ruling god image of Christianity: In an analysis of the visions of Saint Perpetua, a martyr she writes, that those visions enable us to gain a deep insight into the unconscious spiritual situation of the time. They show the deep conflict of that time, the transition from Paganism to Christianity. “The martyrs appear in many respect as the tragic, unconscious victims of the transformation which was then being fulfilled deep down in the collective stratum of the human soul: the transformation of the image of God“."
Most of it is Plato and Pythagoras rehashed with J.-Xt. Egyptian Hieroglyphics were the impetus behind Hebraic mysticism. Persecution played a large part in "hiding the name of the God - YHVH" through numbers and number-relations. Later this became literalized as the Kabala.
I'm yet to read this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mathematical patterns tend to yield harmony and structure and deep meanings. They shed light on the web of relations. But its something else, like a weakling's dishonesty, to claim that as reality in itself. In Pythagorean times, and even to Indo-Germanic people, the "cosmos" was Not reality, but the ordered universe and so Pythagoras could reasonable say the "cosmos" has a metre and a musical harmony. The Indo-Germanics could say chanting and metres "held" the universe. Sacred vs. Profane was a dimension and a guarded border.
But these biblical slaves merge the poetic cosmos as reality itself. Whatever.
Last edited by Lyssa on Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A case of ordering, static noumenon, and the fluctuating producing disordering, phenomenon. Of course it has a logic...it is based on an organic process. Ordering is this self-referential logic....based on the on/off, binary 1/0 neuro-processing method. It reflects the living organism's self-organizing, within a entropic reality. Man projects his own functions outwards, and see them reflected back.
Such an organism can only make sense of patterns reflecting what is most intimate to it: its own on/off neurological method. Beginning as a good/no-good discrimination. Multiplicity reduced to some-thing/no-thing... where THING is the Lord, God, the UNI-verse....the complete verse. Once reduced to that all the incomprehensible things are excuses as infinity, evil, the paradox, the complex, and for the Alexandrian minded secular humanist version of the Judeo-Christian nihilistic psychology, the "yet to be known" and/or the "yet to be deciphered, suing the universal code".
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Immanence/Transcendence the inside/outside merging into oneness. The book-covers of nihilistic holy scripture.
The first begins with the 1, and multiplies it. The idea merges internally. The noumenon, the abstraction, the word/number as the starting self-evident proposition. the other begins with the nil, and then posits a one outside of it. The noumenon is outside the phenomenon. It creates the phenomenon - it thinks it into existence.
The common ground is the abstraction, the noumenon. The all-unifying, all-inclusive, simplifying/generalizing thought.
Descartes begins with the "I"...which thinks. Very Christian.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
1. The aversion to change. All "becomings" are only "modifications" of the "same"; this way "Being" is preserved.
2. A history of persecution coupled with a weary will like all hedonists are, feel a need to believe in "goodness" - i.e. to say, justice, order, humanity, "Being", god, whatever name.
The Cartesian split is most evident in these hedonists for whom "Objectivity" means - the subtraction of the physical, the body,, and the mind alone enjoying... they call this fracture - "aesthetics of higher taste".
And so pleasure is the most primal experience with the Divine - connecting with God. When we orgasm we cry "Oh God!" A moment where need vanishes and consciousnesses under the effect of the endorphin rush has yet to become conscious of a new source of need. In that moment the sensation of infinite gratification - paradise. A mind with no purpose. A mind liberated from the brain - pure noumenon.
The mind freed from its evolutionary purpose of dealing with the organism's needs. A mind coming, as if, from nowhere, from nothing....no brain to upkeep. Sensation with no motive. Mind inebriated by this liberation, yet to be bored, as the satisfaction is ongoing. It is taken over by it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Pure-mind idealism has these jewish-in-mindset people waiting for the one with a mental connection, producing the next gen. with intellectual inclinations, and "impartial" objectivists, scholars, logicians... Such idealism gives these at-bottom-hedonists their charm of self-worth.
But data-metric intelligence alone is not a marker for wholesome health.
A schism, dear...did you not understand? A detachment. Like when a mind is numbed by alcohol or any drug. Detachment from reality...from the stressful, Flux. An ephemeral moment of sublime disconnection, unconscious/consciousness. A hovering in faint. A form of narcissistic self-involvement - solipsism. Same thing, that makes the idiot on ILP associate numbers, if not words, with the universal code.
When noumenon detaches from phenomenon, then one can imagine it hiding underneath all that inconvenient reality.
I attach the aesthetic to the real...you want to disconnect it, purify it, make it pure thought, pure experience, pleasure with no connection to motive, to process, to purpose.
Do you see, now, why you belong there, and not here? They are your own...only they use different symbols. You want to stop at the neurological experience of satisfaction...they want to stop at the pure thought, the noumenon, what the brain does with the neurological stimuli, where you stop. They go a step further.
Keep winking, in that cutesy girly way of yours.... I would say "you'll get there" but after so long I do not think you have the mind to realize how need, produces taste, which leads to pleasure. I think you are stuck in the pleasure creates taste, like other idiots think value precedes judgment...or love proceeds life.... It's the inverted paradigm of Modern Nihilism.
You saying "it is innate, spontaneous" is equivalent to them saying it is "immanent". You using the word aesthetic, is like them using the word value. They detach value from judgment, you detach sensuality from need... detaching the noumenon, the sensation, the abstraction, from the experience of the phenomenon which stimulates this process of abstracting, sensing. Both of you begin with the abstraction, the neurological event...and refuse to consider what stimulates it, what makes it necessary. They begin with "everything is valuable", as Christians begin by stating that "everything is love"...and you begin with "everything is pleasing."
.....................................
Lyssa wrote:
That should be a factor to explain Jewish IQ.
Pure-mind idealism has these jewish-in-mindset people waiting for the one with a mental connection, producing the next gen. with intellectual inclinations, and "impartial" objectivists, scholars, logicians... Such idealism gives these at-bottom-hedonists their charm of self-worth.
But data-metric intelligence alone is not a marker for wholesome health.
When the Newtonian system faces Quantum physics the Modern assumes that there must be a unifying harmonious connection. Not that Newtonian physics, based on this middle-world, perceptual-event-horizon, limit, based on sensuality is contradicted, annulled, when these senses are deepened, using technologies, to where the earlier abstractions no longer hold true, because their generalities/simplifications no longer apply. Newtonian physics is useful....evidence being that man survived this long using them, even before he had formulated them into concepts and laws, and codified them using letters and numbers.
They do not question their own physics, they assume that there is a unifying M-Theory that will unite them back into their desire ONE. The trick is, and this is where creativity comes in, to find a logically consistent, self-referential, code that bridges or unites Newtonian and quantum physics. Either that on abandon one or the other.
Now human abstracting ability is facing a universe in Flux, and it is being contradicted. Will they realize that all their theories are symbolic, metaphorical?
Not if they are Modern.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I think in cohesive models...not is compartmentalized concepts.
That's what the mind does...and when it cannot, because it is genetically unable, or because ti is afraid, or because ti is brainwashed and adopts all its understanding from others, it compartmentalizes.
One rule here, another there. One definition here, another there.
Schopenhauer Buddhist detachment is impossible. It involves a form of self-numbing, and depends on supporting elements to not face the ultimate cost for being drunk in yourself It's why meditation, for me, is only a training, not a lifestyle.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
You connect the sensation to something in the past...to nature.
Aesthetic is the evaluation of a phenomenon, as it compares to a need.
Our need determines our tastes and our aesthetic appreciation. We as organisms appreciate order, organization, symmetry, harmony, all expressions of order, and all probabilities, highly.
You can stop at the sensation. I want to know why. True, knowing why reduces the effect of the automatic sensation...but I value awareness more than anything else.
And so to quiet my mind, to let go, I drink. I drink for the effect, not to become drunk. And when I drink my Dionysian side emerges, and my normal Apollonian personality slumbers, uncaring.
A culture nurtures/represses natural human drives... it sublimates them, but it does not create them.
This is true of all types of manipulation, or training, or whatever you want to call it when behavior is directed. For example, marketing does not create need in the individual, it directs it or manipulates an already existing need, connecting a product, a symbol, a color a fashion style, with this need. A con-artist, or a hypnotist, does not magically alter the others thinking, he exploits what is already present in the other - the individual wants to be convinced, to be hypnotized, and this "artist" establishes trust, or makes the other comfortable enough to allow what is there to come forth.
Therefore, gender is not a construct out of nowhere and nothing. It is a sexual proclivity, nurtured over centuries of natural selection (evolution), resulting in a specialized behavior, and in physical/mental attributes that facilitate this role. Culture simply connects these predispositions with symbols: words, clothing, forms, colors, styles, rituals, and so on.
In short...what meme is to gene, noumenon to phenomenon, gender is to sexual roles.
----------
I may have benefitted from rereading the above before writing this post. I try explaining not so much the connection between gender and sex, but that they need not be considered near completely distinct, even unrelated terms, despite what the consensus in that thread seems to be. Furthermore, I explain how the term gender is being misused by the soft-sciences in conjunction with liberal subcultures.
I use the terms [gender and sex] as I've always used them and learned to use them from listening to others, which is essentially interchangeably.
That would be fine accept we are in the social sciences forum and in that context they are not interchangeable.
For the social sciences the definition for gender is:
Gender refers to the personal sexual identity of an individual, regardless of the person's biological and outward sex. How people define masculinity and femininity can vary based on the individual's background and surrounding culture. Differing societal expectations in different cultures establish the behavioral, psychological and physical attributes that are associated one gender or another.
According to the first sentence of your definition, the particular gender and/or sex that a person is sexually attracted to, would be an attribute of that person's gender. - What would signify a person's "sexual identity" more than the sex that person is attracted to? After all the two sexes evolved for reproductive purposes, reproduction evolving first attraction then copulation.
The rest of you definition is just about defining gender. I realize that some obscure cultures consider people to change sex or gender throughout their life, and have in-between stages they consider people to be in. What I recall is that the cultures, not having anything close to modern science, often consider those stages to be as much a fact as the difference between a large person and a small person, and don't always concern themselves with choice or personal preference.
It makes sense to separate the term gender and sex concerning anthropological studies of cultures lacking modern science, because then when speaking of it we can clearly demonstrate the difference between what a person's sex/gender is (according to science), and what that person's sex/gender (is according to the non-scientific way the people in that culture view reality) - using the term sex for the former and gender for the latter.
But, in modern western culture, where we have modern science, if we wish to define various types of sex/genders and/or stages of sex/genders, we may as well use the tools at our disposal, mainly biology. What we find, of course is that there are a reasonable number of cases of people of mixed sex/gender - not because they claim as much or behave in a way that would make others claim as much, but because of physical features and genetics.
Psychology and sociology are ridiculously soft sciences in comparison to biology. And when they try to subvert the hard-sciences, even if in the devious way of picking one synonym and trying to separate it from the other, they're far out of line. I don't claim that various cultures (or call them subcultures) should give way to science at all times, but that it should be understood that science is not part of a particular culture, just like any other, but encompass what's called western civilization. Western civilization is largely integrated into eastern civilization, and likely has almost a hundred major languages which the major scientific publications are translated into.
So while the sciences' attempt to normalize cultures, or in other words, destroy cultures, leaving nothing but a homogeneous mass called western culture, is understandable, even if not necessarily desirable, the soft sciences are being ridiculous when they try to compete with the hard sciences. After all, a homogenized culture consisting of billions of people, could conceivably be held together by the principals of physics and the biology which owes it's existence largely to physics, but has less chance when concerning behavior or statistical studies concerning psychology or sociology.
Basically what I'm trying to say is if one's from what we would call a traditional culture, they'd have their own way of considering sex/gender and possible some dichotomy of the two, and as they're westernized they may have little problem accepting the hard sciences determinations for sex/gender and simply keep their old determinations separate (and I assume that giving the former the designation sex, and the latter gender, is perfectly reasonable).
But, then we have a culture/non-culture such as American culture, which hardly differs from the cultures/non-cultures in the other major English speaking countries. There we can rely on science alone as the force which changes our way of speaking, where the hard sciences are so far beyond the soft sciences that the soft sciences need not be heeded; or we can rely on tradition, which doesn't use the term gender outside of linguistics anyway; or we can operate within various subcultures.
But, I'm not in one of the various subcultures that have adopted the relatively new way of differentiating sex and gender (and have adopted the wide array of terms describing sex/gender/orientation), so while your claim that I must differentiate sex and gender because we are in the social science forum may have some ground, you would certainly have no ground otherwise.
See there's the problem we have a self described conservative heterosexual man
I only began to get personal after how personal and off topic you let this thread get.
Quote :
running around bashing the vile hypocritical gays without doing the necessary research and being sloppy with his language.
I have only "bashed" anyone here in the sense of calling them hypocritical, for having hypocritical views, which I repeatedly explained, not for their orientation. You've been sloppy earlier thinking I was claiming sexual orientation was largely a choice. And this is further slop.
Quote :
One of the outcomes of this is that I know view you and your half-baked argument as bigotry meant to demeamonize gays.
You don't even understand my argument. And before you speak to my motives, as if this thread was due to an inherent bias I've long had, look at my back posts.
Quote :
Like most heterosexuals I've encountered you want to pitch these ideas in terms of others' sexuality rather than in terms of you own and the majorities heterosexuality and accused them of being vile.
I never accused homosexuals of being vile. If this helps, I believe one is no less a hypocrite to claim heterosexuals have no choice, but gender is a choice, as it is to claim homosexuals have no choice, but gender is a choice.
muddled-turtle wrote:
because I've been taunted I'm locking the thread. Call gays vile or similarly again staurt and i will not give you the benefit of the doubt but ban you immediately.
If I were lying, or lied, you wouldn't be able to accuse me of all of this. Of course I moralize, and I oppress based on it. I said that I'm only human.
I contended merely that my moralizing is reactionary, based on the denigration of myself, and my fellows. I'm at war, I hardly claim to be above it all, or to have absolute right and wrong on my side. I have contingent right and wrong on my side, based on who I identify with, and the allegiances I hold.
An ideal world where everyone accepts the truth, and the correct morality is just delusion, not delusion because it is impossible that the world could hold these truths, and these values, but delusion to think that they aren't mine -- that I don't propose slavery to my ideals.
That aside, to clarify, I never said that I go around claiming that it's all nature, and nothing to do with nurture, I said what I think that the motive for doing so is, and how I find deceptions that benefit me less annoying than deceptions that oppress me.
I gave some points in favor of nature just to show its part, but it doesn't determine, just predisposes.
I do plan to make my way better into my community, and to fight for my cause. For my truths, for my values.
Stuart wrote:
You're at war, the outcome being substantial, meaning of an easily demonstratable effect. In such a war, honest and any other ideology will not get in the way. Most importantly is that you give the readers here the benefit of the doubt and don't give them the same line of propaganda, that you, or at least your comrades, do offline and on more common places online. Your not a hypocrite.
Wosret wrote:
You're using your imagination to slander me, or supposing that I'm responsible for everyone on my general political, social side. Clearly you just have some ax to grind, some point to make.
Stuart wrote:
You claim I slandered you, but please tell me one thing I said that's not based on your own words above.
I said 'comrades', not 'minions', so your second statement has no foundation. Also, I have an axe to grind? You're the one at war.
I've never seen a topic where people get so easily enraged as this. Mudturtle banned me from his forum, I wonder how long until I get banned from the above.
I plan on trying this again. This is my latest essay on the issue. This time I'd like to wait for anyone here to read it, and give advice, before posting it on other forums.
"Sexual orientation, gender, the blank slate theory, and inconsistencies concerning them."
Descriptions of the term "gender":
Gender Description 1 (GD1): Before the 1970s it was used as little more than a grammatical classification. It's still used in such a way when speaking of language and linguistics.
Gender Description 2 (GD2): In the 70s the word began to be often used to refer to a particular mental characteristics (which is manifested through behavior), even if more of a defining characteristic, which is generally based on types of behavior generally associated with one sex or the other.
Basically, according to this usage of the term, many people can have some, or most, behavioral characteristics generally based on the sex which they are not. Often people in this situation will be called feminine males or masculine females - the adjective referring to gender and the noun to sex. Or some may simply say that concerning gender they are male or they're female, and concerning sex, not necessarily corresponding to their gender, they're male or they're female.
Some who use the term in this way consider the particular gender people have to be entirely unrelated to their sex.
Gender Description 3 (GD3): The term is also used, at least since the 70-80s, as a direct synonym for sex, when people are speaking in a non-scientific context. For example, if one wishes to know if one's future boss will be a biological male or a female, one would be more likely to ask, "What's that person's gender?", than, "What's that person's sex?"
(Also, it's worth mentioning the terms "gender role" and "sexual role". The former is a particular type of social role unrelated to any direct aspect of reproduction, the latter is considered by some exclusively related directly to reproduction, and by others to also constitute much, if not all, of what others consider to fall under gender roles. There's a debate as to whether gender roles are mostly, if not entirely, social constructs, or are mostly, if not entirely, roles that evolved due to behavior most suited for each of the two sexes. Whatever the cases may be, the two terms are both roles, meaning they are not characteristics of a person, mentally nor physically, and therefore are irrelevant to this discussion.)
--------------------
The Blank Slate Theory:
It emphasizes nurture over nature when it comes to mental characteristics which are manifested through behavioral characteristics. To be clear, it doesn't state that genetics aren't a factor is mental characteristics; apparently the theory claims there's a standard concerning particular aspects of genetics which nearly all people meet. So all but the few exceptions who fail in that standard (people with mental disabilities due to genetics for example) have at conception a virtually equal potential for intelligence, personality, interests and other mental characteristics (which are manifested through behavior).
Sexual Orientation:
It's not a direct physical attribute, therefore it's a mental characteristic (which is manifested through behavior), even if more of a defining characteristic. This is true even assuming genetics are mostly what define one's sexual orientation. Basically, people can only tell other people's sexual orientation from the others' behavior (which includes the others actually speaking of their orientation) and possibly (at least some day in the future) from studying a DNA sample of theirs.
--------------------
The majority of those involved in the soft sciences, and those with any active role in various groups and organizations advocating for homosexuals in various ways (if not the majority of people in the western world itself) believe that sexual orientation is not something one learns (I'll refer to those people as Group A).
They believe that sexual orientation is either purely genetic or due to both genetics and environmental factors (especially during gestation) which have little if nothing to do with the actual education or experience of that person.
Since most of those attracted to the same sex are either fully biologically male or fully biologically female, and fully capable of reproducing with the opposite sex, sexual orientation is not entirely an aspect of biological sex. Clearly what parts of sexual orientation do not relate to biological sex relate to gender, as described in GD2.
My assumption is that most in Group A don't claim that gender (GD2) is entirely based on nurture, but that most do claim that at least some aspects of one's gender (GD2) are mostly based on nurture (or through what they advocate, lead one to that conclusion).
--------------------
Does anyone in Group A advocate the blank slate theory?
Or does anyone in Group A claim gender (GD 2) is entirely based on nurture (whether or not you advocate any other aspects of the blank slate theory)?
For the above; you can probably see where I find an inconsistency in your beliefs, would you please explain.
Also, does anyone in Group A claim gender (GD 2) is partially based on nurture? If so please elaborate.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37225 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
It cuts into the heart of the Modern psyche. This need for nurture to exceed nature, so as to make them and all of existence malleable, correctable, escapable.
The sum of all nurturing, past/nature, is now corrected in a single lifetime, or a few years of "proper" conditioning. This is social eugenics, which they call "education" or culture.
This implies self-repression. And self-repression is hiding, lying, being a hypocrite when what you think does not correspond to what you say.
Modern schizophrenia....neurosis of the discontents, pretending to be "happy".
They want to deny that this is even necessary, so as to then return to the pretentiousness, as if it were genuine.
It's about how these types cannot follow their own conclusions to their logical end. I've found that imbeciles adopt a position based no emotional appeal, but have no clue what this conclusion implies. They haven't come to the conclusion themselves, following the reasoning, but have adopted it, as a conclusion.
This is top<>down thinking. Begin with a satisfying outcome, a gratifying conclusion, and then justify it later.
When you point out what they are saying implies, they become frustrated, afraid, ...they are exposed as the morons that they are. They get upset.
Then, they want you gone. I've experienced this many times.
The "I know all that" is how they display how they do not UNDERSTAND what they know. Like their anti-race positions.
Ask them to explain how evolution works if traits are uniformly distributed automatically, and if all have the same potentials. Why even have a natural selection process....why choose?
Ask them to explain how species come about. How from a common ancestry genetic splintering proceeds gradually, from less towards more divergence, to the point where cross-reproduction ceases to be an option. They can't, while at the same time preserving their desired outcome: equality, human uniformity....all-inclusive parity...the comforting unity of HUMANITY.
