The Value of Truth + Truth & Gender

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

all philosohpy is essentially a study of the ego.

The way it was phrased, it could be interpreted that you meant that philosophy is just a study of the ego. There is more to philosophy than just ego (and I note that it would be a little egotistical to think that it was).

That isn't what you meant, is it? Philosophy includes nature, time, causality... these things don't involve ego, do they?

[Leyla Shen]

David Quinn wrote:

I think relativity does make Newtonian physics untrue in a fundamental sense. For example, the Newtonian view that gravity is an attractive force is falsified by the Einsteinian view that gravity is really curved space.

Mathematically, Newtonian physics is still an effective theory within its proper context, just as the view that everything is an illusion is effective within its proper context. The equations still work for most practical purposes, even though they spring from out-dated concepts.

What? Newton’s law of gravity sprung from his laws of motion--which, as far as I know, are far from outdated.

Do you think particle physics is the proper context of everything, then? If so, how so?

.

[tooyi]

About philosophy and philosophers:

"The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it
concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of
the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of
their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in
the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally
true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the
magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not
only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."
-- History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Volume 1 by Gibbon

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Basic clothing is a necessity because we are hairless creatures who need protection from the elements, and also to hide our genitalia, thus minimizing our sexual displays and keeping sex compartmentalized from social view.

Most people are indoors so much that there are hardly any elements to protect from, and are outside so infrequently that the extra skin exposed to the sun would help produce more vitamin D.

Doesn't "keeping sex compartmentalized from social view" indicate a herd mentality on that? "Social view" self-indicates that you are talking about a social construct. Breasts are for feeding infants, just as knees and elbows are for bending, and butts are for sitting on. A penis is either for sex or urination, but if we see one uncovered on a horse or a dog, we do not think anything of it unless he is using it for either of those purposes. Why is it not the same with humans? Social constructs, that's why.

I am not advocating that we all run around either naked or with only the clothing physically required, I am merely noting - alabeit with an extreme example for purposes of illustration - that some silly social constructs are harmless, and not lies.

[tooyi]

...that some silly social constructs are harmless, and not lies.

Social constructs or not, they are harmful and lies as much as they compel others to follow suit. That no one around was the first one to do so gives a handy excuse to regard oneself innocent, while in fact, one is exactly the first one every single time one actually commits the act. What it creates is an economy of appearances and in an economy you must have money or else you'd be left out of all good things... apparently.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

...that some silly social constructs are harmless, and not lies.

Social constructs or not, they are harmful and lies as much as they compel others to follow suit. That no one around was the first one to do so gives a handy excuse to regard oneself innocent, while in fact, one is exactly the first one every single time one actually commits the act. What it creates is an economy of appearances and in an economy you must have money or else you'd be left out of all good things... apparently.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

So are you against clothing other than what is needed for hygenic and directly functional purposes? Should men and flat-chested women wear tops if they are going to be indoors all day?

If that wasn't it, then what specific social constructs were you referring to that are harmful? Are we specifically back on makeup again?

Harmful yes as in unhealthy - lies to compel others to follow suit? No - social pressure is not a lie. It is wrong, I'll agree to that, but it is not a lie.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The enlightened teacher can't explain how things are absolutely real, and not illusory, to the ordinary person trapped in conventional materialism. He isn't ready for that type of truth. He would only misunderstand it. His attachment to the materialistic outlook would only be reaffirmed and strengthened So in effect, such a teaching, in those circumstances, would constitute a lie.

Kevin illustrated this basic dynamic in "Poison for the Heart":

To the women in my audience, cause and effect is most definitely real.

To the men in my audience, cause and effect is most definitely not real.

Both of these cases involve expressing truth to suit the circumstances.

-

I still do not see enough truth in this example for it to even make sense. Kevin addressed this quote for me in another thread when I questioned him on it; here's what Kevin said (Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:29 pm):

Different people have different delusions to overcome.

There is a teaching in Zen: At the beginning of the Path there is a teapot, further along the path there is no teapot, and at the end of the path there is again a teapot.

I held back comment on that at that time to think about it further. I have, and after a couple of months it still does not make sense to not just lay out the whole proposition clearly. Kevin's description is much the same as what you were describing earlier David, but I still do not see why the whole map can not be laid out for people from the begining. I can see where some may need to be taken one step at a time, but I do not see how laying out the whole map, and pointing out the route and destination, would not be the most efficient way to get the job done.

MOST specifically to the example from Kevin's book, by pointing out two different perspectives based on gender, a person is not only not going to see a universal Truth, but is going to perceive that there is no truth there because of the highlighted incongruency.

If instead he laid out the map, people may then follow how there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is a mountain - or teapot, or whatever. People could follow that this is the map, but these are the steps to get there, and they must be taken one at a time. This then would not be a lie.

[tooyi]

So are you against clothing other than briefs?

(Oh, you changed this.)

No. I am saying use your better judgement. Just don't try feel good about it. You can't.


Slighly longer...

Wear for weather or wear what suits you but when you consider it harmless and not a lie, you also instantly agree to consider other things such as drugs and steroids harmless and not a lie. (*) The good feeling that you get when wearing new beautiful clothes, that make you who you consider yourself to be, is part of the rush one gets when feeding an addiction. The boosted chemistry seems good in your search of happiness, which is a void task, but compound interest of ill things really doesn't help even if it temporarily wrentches a smile on your face.

(*) At this point the immediate recoil is to account for all the ill effects of drug abuse which of course are all true.

The more innocuous the drug the more harmful it gets because it is easier to soon consider it completely fine. Once the order of questioning has been turned on its head all avenues of protecting the addiction suggest themselves, and there is again another layer of illusion to build on. So yes, makeup is very bad. "Letting go? Fat chance!"

...

As a nice intro, that might help with the attitude, with which one conducts questioning things, it might be good to watch the video:

Robert Wright interviews Steven Pinker:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6299738997

They're peering over an abyss but there are many good moments there, and one can try study how personal hopes and beliefs are stimulated by different openings in the discussion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The way I read it, you have stopped putting on make-up (for the moment) because you've found out that make-up is carcinogenic. That is, you've temporarily...

I took some time to consider, because we have not known each other very long, but I have thought back and you have been provided with enough data to know me better than that by now. Therefore, perhaps you have forgotten, or perhaps you did not believe what I told you. A side effect of not being forthright is a lack of recognition of forthrightness in others. Although you have been honest in your disclosures of "imperfection" regarding expulsion of all emotion, you nevertheless to an extent deny your feelings David, perhaps sometimes even to yourself. I have not known you very long - is this recent change in you a regular build-up from the suppression of emotion? Does it cycle out and the other David comes back? Is there just so much extra tension in your life right now that it is affecting your mentation?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

So are you against clothing other than briefs?

(Oh, you changed this.)

Yes, I wanted to clarify my meaning better.

I will consider the rest of your post and respond again later.

[sue hindmarsh]

Elizabeth replied to David Quinn:

DQ: The way I read it, you have stopped putting on make-up (for the moment) because you've found out that make-up is carcinogenic. That is, you've temporarily...

I took some time to consider, because we have not known each other very long, but I have thought back and you have been provided with enough data to know me better than that by now. Therefore, perhaps you have forgotten, or perhaps you did not believe what I told you. A side effect of not being forthright is a lack of recognition of forthrightness in others. Although you have been honest in your disclosures of "imperfection" regarding expulsion of all emotion, you nevertheless to an extent deny your feelings David, perhaps sometimes even to yourself. I have not known you very long - is this recent change in you a regular build-up from the suppression of emotion? Does it cycle out and the other David comes back? Is there just so much extra tension in your life right now that it is affecting your mentation?

Women enjoy being the centre of attention, but only if they feel that they are being seen in the best possible light. The above is a marvelous example of what happens when woman feels that that isn’t happening.

Elizabeth seemly wanted to be rewarded for her stance on make-up, but instead David Quinn pointed out that all she had done was swap one egotistical pleasure for another. Women don’t like to be ‘exposed’ like that, but happily for them, they have a remedy for it - hit their opponent with “you’ve got emotional problems”. This often has the effect of making the other person defend themselves, or to end the conversation – which is exactly what she wants. If it is pointed out that that sort of tack has nothing to do with the subject; woman will say that the other person is once again “suppressing their emotions”. This usually puts a definite end to the conversation.

Women are able to get away with this sort of nonsense because you cannot reason with them - as they are incapable of examining their thoughts. The feminine mind has no base position from which to make judgments; leaving them only capable of responding to situations as they arise. This means that whatever comes to her ‘mind’ is true and correct. Without a base to judge things by she can’t see that her thoughts are inconsistent; nor can she see that her thoughts aren’t really ‘thoughts’ at all.

-

Another point of interest is how women form immediate relationships with others. This ‘bonding’ assists her by drawing out of others their deep attachment to the feminine - often making people more tolerant and yielding.

Elizabeth uses first ‘bonding’, and then casts doubts upon David’s emotional stability – just two weapons from the feminine arsenal. Though I can’t imagine David being bamboozled by either of them.

-
Sue

[millipodium]

Elizabeth replied to David Quinn:

DQ: The way I read it, you have stopped putting on make-up (for the moment) because you've found out that make-up is carcinogenic. That is, you've temporarily...

I took some time to consider, because we have not known each other very long, but I have thought back and you have been provided with enough data to know me better than that by now. Therefore, perhaps you have forgotten, or perhaps you did not believe what I told you. A side effect of not being forthright is a lack of recognition of forthrightness in others. Although you have been honest in your disclosures of "imperfection" regarding expulsion of all emotion, you nevertheless to an extent deny your feelings David, perhaps sometimes even to yourself. I have not known you very long - is this recent change in you a regular build-up from the suppression of emotion? Does it cycle out and the other David comes back? Is there just so much extra tension in your life right now that it is affecting your mentation?

Women enjoy being the centre of attention, but only if they feel that they are being seen in the best possible light. The above is a marvelous example of what happens when woman feels that that isn’t happening.

Elizabeth seemly wanted to be rewarded for her stance on make-up, but instead David Quinn pointed out that all she had done was swap one egotistical pleasure for another. Women don’t like to be ‘exposed’ like that, but happily for them, they have a remedy for it - hit their opponent with “you’ve got emotional problems”. This often has the effect of making the other person defend themselves, or to end the conversation – which is exactly what she wants. If it is pointed out that that sort of tack has nothing to do with the subject; woman will say that the other person is once again “suppressing their emotions”. This usually puts a definite end to the conversation.

Women are able to get away with this sort of nonsense because you cannot reason with them - as they are incapable of examining their thoughts. The feminine mind has no base position from which to make judgments; leaving them only capable of responding to situations as they arise. This means that whatever comes to her ‘mind’ is true and correct. Without a base to judge things by she can’t see that her thoughts are inconsistent; nor can she see that her thoughts aren’t really ‘thoughts’ at all.

-

Another point of interest is how women form immediate relationships with others. This ‘bonding’ assists her by drawing out of others their deep attachment to the feminine - often making people more tolerant and yielding.

Elizabeth uses first ‘bonding’, and then casts doubts upon David’s emotional stability – just two weapons from the feminine arsenal. Though I can’t imagine David being bamboozled by either of them.

-
Sue

Meeeoooow. CATFIGHT!

[sue hindmarsh]

Your intuition is off there a bit Milli, but you're most welcome to enter into the discussion about those aspects of the feminine that I've raised.

-
Sue

[millipodium]

Your intuition is off there a bit Milli, but you're most welcome to enter into the discussion about those aspects of the feminine that I've raised.

-
Sue

Like the need to slam other women? It is a catfight. My intuition is dead on. You're in denial

[Gretchen]

Elizabeth,

What I was trying to say is this, what is your intent when you put that make-up on and a certain set of clothing? If you don’t care and afford no effort of thought into it at all, the point is moot…but if you calculate, what is your motive?

You said:

It's silly, but it's harmless enough. What's important is what's on the inside, but there are many shallow people out there that won't look at the inside unless it's wrapped in a pretty package. 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.

Which I interpret to mean that you choose to wear make-up and certain clothing because of other’s expectations…not your own.

You said:

Okay, I'm not sure what to make of today. I had to go grocery shopping, and I skipped the mascara. I went out wearing a sweatshirt, sweatpants, and no make-up of any kind. Because it does not make a personal difference to me whether I wear mascara or not, and because I picked up the idea of skipping it from some of the comments on this thread rather than as something I came up with entirely on my own, I felt like I was just following a different herd. Whichever I choose, it will by default be of one herd or another

Which I interpret to mean that you chose not to wear make-up to understand what the other side meant by it. Although, an interesting experiment, you had another intent in mind…to choose to meet other’s expectations-not your own.

You said:

That is what I meant by "the greater good." The greater good is "being taken seriously." The challenge seems to be the diversity of what is or is not taken seriously by different "herds." I understand the reasoning of why some here are saying they would not take a wrapped package seriously, but it seems to me that a herd of sages would simply understand why a package may either be wrapped or unwrapped, and take each individual thought on its own merit - independent of the package, and independent of any other thoughts that may or may not be of value from the same source.

Rory, perhaps you feel fake when you are wearing makeup because you identify yourself as someone who does not wear makeup. I do not identify myself as either someone who wears makeup or as someone who does not wear makeup. I am my thoughts.

If you are your thoughts, why then do you choose to wear certain types of clothing and make-up at certain times?

Why, with guys, must so much be a "trick" to be played on someone rather than straightforward Truth?

[DQ, I should have edited the word “lying” to be “trick”, somehow “trick” got intermingled in the thread with “lying” – words can kill the message]

But you must also see that these “tricks” they play may be as harmless to them as your mascara and clothing is to the executives you wish to take you seriously. Although, I think choosing make-up and certain types of clothing is a moot point only because if you are invited to attend a meeting it is more than likely you have made the cut of being taken seriously already…and that can be proved by what comes out of your mouth.

However, say you didn’t really care about your appearance, but people considered you a genius. They wanted you to be in the meeting but the person they wanted you to talk to was into personal hygiene and packaging. They may give you a make-over in order to trick the guy into listening to you. Sure, the package didn’t change the truth, but the guy wouldn’t have listened to you otherwise. The question is: do you do it? Why?

So it is for these guys here, when new people come on this forum, they are filled with notions and ideas that are false. These people can also be convicted in their thinking, therefore, it takes a certain skill to "trick" this person into thinking outside the box for a minute. If they are true thinkers, they will consider the information, otherwise the trick won’t work either way…it may even strengthen their illusion, which is why I stated before that one must know the probable outcome of their trickery to ensure they are leading the plebe on the right course.

You said:

Guys tend to think that it is okay to exaggerate in order to look macho or to completely lie to cover up their feelings - and then their excuse is "everybody knows what was really meant, so it wasn't really like a lie," but that again is another lie. Females view that as stupid behavior because if people are truthful about what their needs are, then those needs can be met, and no one is going to waste time or embarrass anyone by asking someone to do something he can't do.

As for the "tough guy" routine, the young men these days don't hide their feelings any longer...it will be interesting to see if they change as responsibility takes over or if the world will become a different place. But as to the current generation of tough guys, you act needy...you'll be devoured. Emotions are one thing but business is another...have you ever tried taking food out of a hungry dog's mouth?

Let's look at this way, what if your peer at work, a man, were to be honest with you in the way you desire? You would then know his every weakness and flaw. Then, a promotion potential arises, but only one of the two of you get the job. The job pays a lot more money, and you both need an increase to continue your standard of living...would you use what you know against him to get the job? Some women would and most men definitely would. There is a saying: Once burned, twice learned...or Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Try bearing the responsibility of years of social indoctrination that the man is to provide for his wife and family only for it to be taken away by someone who saw the slightest hint of weakness or vulnerability in him. Men do strange things in this situation. I’ve seen them steal their own mother blind to live up to this indoctrination and societal expectations.

The more people move to the truth, the more opportunity we have to be more honest, but everyone's truth is as skewed as the next and the only one who can escape this insanity is the person who doesn't hold attachments to any object of affection.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

CF

Your intuition is off there a bit Milli, but you're most welcome to enter into the discussion about those aspects of the feminine that I've raised.

-
Sue

Like the need to slam other women? It is a catfight. My intuition is dead on. You're in denial

Yes mil, your intuition is dead-on. I consider it would be a damaging lie to you to deny it. How "womanly" of Sue to deny it. Any reader that wants to skip the silliness of a catfight can skip this post and any other post of mine that I'll label with a CF in the upper left hand corner. This is sheer silliness, but it must be addressed.

This is the second time Sue has taken an irrational stance against me, twisting something I have said into some fantasy-meaning to support her misogynistic delusions about me.

Just like last time, I will counter her with the truth presented in a rational response. Last time she wrapped up her end with a "we can not hold a woman responsible for what she says or does" blurb directed at me, even though it was obvious to others that she had stated a misinterpretation of my interaction with Scott. How "womanly" to ask "the audience" for forgiveness of me for being a woman when in fact it was she (a woman) who was "in need" of forgiveness for her instigating a "cat fight." Let's just get her another saucer of milk so we can get back to the real discussion.

Actually, to save some typing, I'll quote the transferrable part of the last catfight - and we can just understand that the gist is the same, just change out "Scott" for "David":

Women have many ways of ‘getting back’ at someone who they feel has slighted them – Elizabeth’s small intimate moment with Scott is just one example.

Sue, you are reading something into the interaction that was just not there. Scott and I were not seeing things the same way. We argued to get to the truth of why we were not seeing things the same way. That is all.

Again – I’m not saying that she purposely thought of it in that way – not at all. It is a natural reaction for a being that must always live through others. Elizabeth, and all other women have only the barest of independent souls, which means that they must be considered innocent in their relationships with others – as innocent as children.

That sounds like a piece of David's work. Coming from you, it sounds like an excuse you may hide behind to allow yourself to get away with whatever manipulation or attempt to tear down another that you may indulge yourself in. I interact responsibly with others, and you are just as capable of interacting responsibly as anyone else. It might be tempting to accept absolution for all actions and to latch on to an immunity from all future interactions, but to be ethical, we must resist that temptation. By taking responsibility for our words and actions, we open our minds up to growth.

Please try to be objective Sue. Only see what is there - do not try to distort the truth for any reason: pettiness because I entered your domain at Genius Forums, some unhealthy emotional charge out of seeing whose buttons you can push and what happens when you push those buttons, feeling powerful if you can knock somebody down - any reason.

Ah, yes - about "entered your domain at Genius Forums" - a recap for those not familiar with the other catfight, Sue essentially admitted that her targeting of me was because I'd entered "her domain" - I imagine she especially considers David to be "her domain" and may imagine that I am some kind of threat when I interact with him.

Actually, that last catfight occurred right around the time that David started his sabbatical, and she starts another one right when he gets back.

Sue, I do hope that your interactions on GF are more than just an opportunity to keep an eye on the father of your child, and an opportunity to stroke his ego by parroting off his thoughts - and therefore trying to engraciate yourself to this person who has been trying to lead a celibate life since before you manipulated some sperm out of him (thereby ensuring that you would have a lifetime of contact with this man who otherwise might have kept much more distance from you in his attempt to eliminate "woman" from his life to follow the path to wisdom. You're in your mid 40's now, and your son is about 15, so that means you were about 30 when you got pregnant - which is old enough to know how to use birth control correctly (unless a condom slipped or broke, and even at that 30 is old enough to know that applying a petrolium jelly like Vasaline to the vagina is one way to damage the condom enough that it would break, if one were so inclined to do that) and it is also about the age when it is the end of the safe time for a first pregnancy.

Women enjoy being the centre of attention, but only if they feel that they are being seen in the best possible light. The above is a marvelous example of what happens when woman feels that that isn’t happening.

Hmm, perhaps it will be interesting to read your response to what is above this quote.

Elizabeth seemly wanted to be rewarded for her stance on make-up, but instead David Quinn pointed out that all she had done was swap one egotistical pleasure for another.

No, like any of the other posters on this board who post for the purpose of Truth and enlightenment, I was just posting the truth. I'm trying to understand the world and figure out what matters. I then noted inaccuracy in David's perception, and noted it. That is how this works - others help us become wiser by pointing out our misperceptions, but in reciprocation we are expected to point out others' misperceptions. Often this works out to shake out any further misperceptions we may have.

Just because you have an ulterior motive does not mean that all biological women do. I did not change my stance on makeup until I personally had a logic-based reason to do so. If I were only doing it to seek reward, I would have just blindly agreed to whatever was being said - much like you do with David's low-hanging fruit.

Women don’t like to be ‘exposed’ like that, but happily for them, they have a remedy for it - hit their opponent with “you’ve got emotional problems”.

You don't see a difference in David between when he temporarily left the board and now that he has returned? Well, perhaps not if you have been seeing him regularly in person. There was a big gap in when he was posting, so perhaps I can see the change more easily than someone who has had more interaction with him.

This often has the effect of making the other person defend themselves, or to end the conversation – which is exactly what she wants.

You have no idea what I want - obviously.

Women are able to get away with this sort of nonsense because you cannot reason with them - as they are incapable of examining their thoughts. The feminine mind has no base position from which to make judgments; leaving them only capable of responding to situations as they arise. This means that whatever comes to her ‘mind’ is true and correct. Without a base to judge things by she can’t see that her thoughts are inconsistent; nor can she see that her thoughts aren’t really ‘thoughts’ at all.

Is this your excuse for not reading my post to David rationally?

Another point of interest is how women form immediate relationships with others. This ‘bonding’ assists her by drawing out of others their deep attachment to the feminine - often making people more tolerant and yielding.

Elizabeth uses first ‘bonding’, and then casts doubts upon David’s emotional stability – just two weapons from the feminine arsenal. Though I can’t imagine David being bamboozled by either of them.

Sounds like a jealous rant, followed with a manipulation of David to try to make him think that you are correct in your delusional interpretation, and that he should listen to you rather than to reason.

Here's the flaw in your manipulation - in order for you to use David's "woman" theory, which you whole-heartedly absorb by becoming a reflection of his interests while hiding behind every "out" he grants "women," you lack true rationality. The David that was here before his sabattical had a good rational streak in him. I can relate to that David, and I am tring to draw him back out of this David. Rationality trumps over womanly manipulation.

You are just jealous because I am more rational than you are. There is no need for you to be jealous Sue; as I have said before, you are perfectly capable of being rational. You are obviously intelligent, but you have used your intelligence to hone your womanly manipulation. Just focus on rationality instead and you will be just fine.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth,

What I was trying to say is this, what is your intent when you put that make-up on and a certain set of clothing? If you don’t care and afford no effort of thought into it at all, the point is moot…but if you calculate, what is your motive?

I honestly don't know if what I was doing would be considered a calculation or not. I did consider whether or not to wear make-up and how much of it to wear based on my perceptions of socially acceptable behavior. Is it calculating to not fart in public?

You said:

It's silly, but it's harmless enough. What's important is what's on the inside, but there are many shallow people out there that won't look at the inside unless it's wrapped in a pretty package. 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.

Which I interpret to mean that you choose to wear make-up and certain clothing because of other’s expectations…not your own.

You said:

Okay, I'm not sure what to make of today. I had to go grocery shopping, and I skipped the mascara. I went out wearing a sweatshirt, sweatpants, and no make-up of any kind. Because it does not make a personal difference to me whether I wear mascara or not, and because I picked up the idea of skipping it from some of the comments on this thread rather than as something I came up with entirely on my own, I felt like I was just following a different herd. Whichever I choose, it will by default be of one herd or another

Which I interpret to mean that you chose not to wear make-up to understand what the other side meant by it. Although, an interesting experiment, you had another intent in mind…to choose to meet other’s expectations-not your own.

[/quote]

I was confused about what to think. Confusion is a sign of insufficient information. The logical way to obtain more information about something that has two sides is to immerse one;s self in the opposite side that one usually takes - which was the reason for the "different herd" approach to no makeup at that point. I later stopped the makeup for a permanent decision based on all of the evidence - and the piece of evidence that tipped the scale in favor of no makeup was the health risk.

You said:

That is what I meant by "the greater good." The greater good is "being taken seriously." The challenge seems to be the diversity of what is or is not taken seriously by different "herds." I understand the reasoning of why some here are saying they would not take a wrapped package seriously, but it seems to me that a herd of sages would simply understand why a package may either be wrapped or unwrapped, and take each individual thought on its own merit - independent of the package, and independent of any other thoughts that may or may not be of value from the same source.

Rory, perhaps you feel fake when you are wearing makeup because you identify yourself as someone who does not wear makeup. I do not identify myself as either someone who wears makeup or as someone who does not wear makeup. I am my thoughts.

If you are your thoughts, why then do you choose to wear certain types of clothing and make-up at certain times?

Communication involves making sure that the thought that is sent is received as it was intended. The outer package is part of the communication, so the importance of the package is as a communication device for the thoughts. Just as one would speak a little louder to someone who has difficulty hearing in order to make sure the person heard what is said, a person's appearance may need to change in order to "speak" to those who close their minds to anyone who does not appear like someone they are willing to hear out.

I have stopped wearing makeup because of the reasons I stated, but I will continue to do other things that i see as reasonable, that the QRS may find "herdy." I will dress in a manner that is socially appropriate for the occasion (rather than just dress for comfort or health), I will pluck abherrant hairs that grow where they ought not grow on a female, I will refrain from audible belching or farting in public, and I will abide by a variety of other things that are simply social constructs. This is all part of the "individual" being a communication device for the thoughts that are truly all that I am.

Why, with guys, must so much be a "trick" to be played on someone rather than straightforward Truth?

[DQ, I should have edited the word “lying” to be “trick”, somehow “trick” got intermingled in the thread with “lying” – words can kill the message]

But you must also see that these “tricks” they play may be as harmless to them as your mascara and clothing is to the executives you wish to take you seriously.

Yes, I am getting that point - I am just still flushing out the "why" of the point.

Although, I think choosing make-up and certain types of clothing is a moot point only because if you are invited to attend a meeting it is more than likely you have made the cut of being taken seriously already…and that can be proved by what comes out of your mouth.

However, say you didn’t really care about your appearance, but people considered you a genius. They wanted you to be in the meeting but the person they wanted you to talk to was into personal hygiene and packaging. They may give you a make-over in order to trick the guy into listening to you. Sure, the package didn’t change the truth, but the guy wouldn’t have listened to you otherwise. The question is: do you do it? Why?

I think I delineated that above in this post - let me know if I should expound further.

So it is for these guys here, when new people come on this forum, they are filled with notions and ideas that are false. These people can also be convicted in their thinking, therefore, it takes a certain skill to "trick" this person into thinking outside the box for a minute. If they are true thinkers, they will consider the information, otherwise the trick won’t work either way…it may even strengthen their illusion, which is why I stated before that one must know the probable outcome of their trickery to ensure they are leading the plebe on the right course.

Exactly. For example, although Dan understands me better than most people do, he still misses some major points. I hang back a bit on correcting his perceptions of me when I'm not sure how to best explain myself, and I am concerned that might be misleading, but I am still working on how to present my ideas most effectively. This place is good practice for that.

For my personal journey, knowing they use trickery, and developing an increasing distrust of guys from reading some of the masculinity thoughts around here (combined with the mountain of BS that I have encountered from guys offline), my defenses are up. I do not learn as well in an environment of distrust, although I'm learning the value of being able to do so.

Dan knows me well enough to know that I'm not as likely to confidently understand what someone means unless someone gives it to me straight. Not knowing if someone is giving me their thoughts straight (most especially Kevin, and most recently David and Cory [although Cory to a much lesser extent]) erodes my confidence of understanding (which, I understand, is a level of understanding in and of itself).

I am more likely to learn from people like you passthrough and Dan, Scott, Steven, millipodium (if he ever comes up with anything profound), Ryan, kow-recently/sometimes (at least I can tell when he is being straight or not), David H, and Trevor - because I know that they play straight.

If I get the idea that someone may not be playing straight, I don't know what to make of their statements. That is not conducive to learning.

You said:

Guys tend to think that it is okay to exaggerate in order to look macho or to completely lie to cover up their feelings - and then their excuse is "everybody knows what was really meant, so it wasn't really like a lie," but that again is another lie. Females view that as stupid behavior because if people are truthful about what their needs are, then those needs can be met, and no one is going to waste time or embarrass anyone by asking someone to do something he can't do.

As for the "tough guy" routine, the young men these days don't hide their feelings any longer...it will be interesting to see if they change as responsibility takes over or if the world will become a different place. But as to the current generation of tough guys, you act needy...you'll be devoured. Emotions are one thing but business is another...have you ever tried taking food out of a hungry dog's mouth?

I hope that really is universally the case that young men don't hide their feelings any longer. Honesty - including in revealing one's true emotions - really is the most effective way to grow.

As for acting needy, if one is needy, then one should act needy - they will then get what they need. It may not be what they think they need or feel that they need, but it will be what they ultimatly need to not be needy anymore. This is an important point - please let me know if you don't fully understand what I mean in this point.

Let's look at this way, what if your peer at work, a man, were to be honest with you in the way you desire? You would then know his every weakness and flaw. Then, a promotion potential arises, but only one of the two of you get the job. The job pays a lot more money, and you both need an increase to continue your standard of living...would you use what you know against him to get the job? Some women would and most men definitely would. There is a saying: Once burned, twice learned...or Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I personally would not, and I'm not sure if it is calculating of me to not use what I know against him. I am aware that if I abuse whatever I know, it would both be telling on him and worse to my ends, telling on me and my lack of ethics if I were to be so lacking.

I am also aware that for me personally, I'll look guilty even if I didn't do anything that most people would have even considered as wrong. If I even think that it might have a wrong aspect to it and I try it, it goes horribly wrong. For that reason, I don't get "brownie points" for doing the right thing. I just can't make the wrong thing work out right, so I don't bother. It really isn't me doing the right thing, it's the Totality. I don't deserve credit for it.

Try bearing the responsibility of years of social indoctrination that the man is to provide for his wife and family only for it to be taken away by someone who saw the slightest hint of weakness or vulnerability in him. Men do strange things in this situation. I’ve seen them steal their own mother blind to live up to this indoctrination and societal expectations.

Yes; I've seen it too. Disgusting, isn't it? That is just weakness and lack of understanding of Ultimate Reality on their parts.

[Rory]

Elizabeth, what I think you fail to understand is that no one here is impressed that you stopped wearing makeup for health reasons. That is no more impressive than "I took my medicine today." Nor does it really say anything about your philosophical growth or stance - except to say that your health is a more important attachment than your made up face.


This is a philosophy board where a part of the philosophy states that wearing make up is... well... making up something you want people to believe. And it is a lie - even if it is one that society deems acceptable. Just because everyone knows you're lying doesn't mean you're not lying. If I declared myself to be Superman, even though everyone knows I'm not Superman, I'm still lying about whether or not I am Superman.


-Rory

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Robert Wright interviews Steven Pinker:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6299738997

They're peering over an abyss but there are many good moments there, and one can try study how personal hopes and beliefs are stimulated by different openings in the discussion.

It was a very worthwhile listen, and I intend to go over it again. This Steven Pinker is really good.

I can't comment on it specifically further yet, I'm still absorbing it - but thank you for the link tooyi, this is excellent.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth, what I think you fail to understand is that no one here is impressed that you stopped wearing makeup for health reasons. That is no more impressive than "I took my medicine today." Nor does it really say anything about your philosophical growth or stance - except to say that your health is a more important attachment than your made up face.

Rory, I can't believe you took the shallow approach to this - I thought you knew me better than that. I'm not looking for kudos for stopping wearing makeup. This is a ridiculous interpretation of my communication.

This is a philosophy board where a part of the philosophy states that wearing make up is... well... making up something you want people to believe.

I do not see that spelled out in the banner.

And it is a lie - even if it is one that society deems acceptable. Just because everyone knows you're lying doesn't mean you're not lying.

Premise: A lie is to communicate a falsehood with the intent to deceive.

Conclusion 1: If everyone knows it is a lie, but the liar does not know that everyone knows it is a lie, it is still a lie.
(just a very ineffective one)

Conclusion 2: If a person communicates a falsehood but without the intent to deceive, it is not a lie.
(it is known as a mistake)

If I declared myself to be Superman, even though everyone knows I'm not Superman, I'm still lying about whether or not I am Superman.

-Rory

That would depend on if you really believed that you were Superman. If you thought you were Superman and declared yourself so, you would be delusional, but you would not be lying.

All lies are falsehoods, but all falsehoods are not lies.

[Matt Gregory]

The Benefits of Beauty

People differ in many ways. One difference is in how attractive they are. The actor Brad Pitt, for instance, is a handsome man. In part for this reason, his movies attract large audiences. Not surprisingly, the large audiences mean a large income for Mr. Pitt.

How prevalent are the economic benefits of beauty? Labor economists Daniel Hamermesh and Jeff Biddle tried to answer this question in a study published in the December 1994 issue of the American Economic Review. Hamermesh and Biddle examined data from surveys of individuals in the United States and Canada. The interviewers who conducted the survey were asked to rate each respondent's physical appearance. Hamermesh and Biddle then examined how much the wages of the respondents depended on the standard determinants--education, experience, and so on--and how much they depended on physical appearance.

Hamermesh and Biddle found that beauty pays. People who are deemed more attractive earn 5 percent more than people of average looks. People of average looks earn 5 to 10 percent more than people considered less attractive than average. Similar results were found for men and women.

What explains these differences in wages? There are several ways to interpret the "beauty premium."

One interpretation is that good looks are themselves a type of innate ability determining productivity and wages. Some people are born with the attributes of a movie star; other people are not. Good looks are useful in any job in which workers present themselves to the public--such as acting, sales, and waiting on tables. In this case, an attractive worker is more valuable to the firm than an unattractive worker. The firm's willingness to pay more to attractive workers reflects its customers' preferences.

A second interpretation is that reported beauty is an indirect measure of other types of ability. How attractive a person appears depends on more than just heredity. It also depends on dress, hairstyle, personal demeanor, and other attributes that a person can control. Perhaps a person who successfully projects an attractive image in a survey interview is more likely to be an intelligent person who succeeds at other tasks as well.

A third interpretation is that the beauty premium is a type of discrimination...

- N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Very poignant Matt.

[Rory]

Rory, I can't believe you took the shallow approach to this - I thought you knew me better than that. I'm not looking for kudos for stopping wearing makeup. This is a ridiculous interpretation of my communication.

Perhaps not so ridiculous since it is what everyone thought you meant. Maybe instead of acting as if everyone who didn't understand you is stupid you should reexplain your point in a way that makes sense. The closest I've seen is that there are several reasons for your decision, but the health factor was the tipping point. This still means you made your decision based on the health aspect, which is, as David pointed out, another attachment. I won't fault you for that one since there are many things I do for my health. But it is what it is, and one should at least acknowledge it for what it is.

I do not see that spelled out in the banner.

Well I don't see how there would be a need to post necessary correlaries of everything in the banner. One could infer from 'Truth' and from the fact that everyone is telling you make up is a lie that this is a part of the philosophy. One could also take it from the 'Masculinity' section of the banner.

And it is a lie - even if it is one that society deems acceptable. Just because everyone knows you're lying doesn't mean you're not lying.

Premise: A lie is to communicate a falsehood with the intent to deceive.

Which is, in fact, the purpose of make up. Hide those wrinkles, make your skin look "20 years younger in just 10 minutes!" make your lips stand out more and look more seductive, make your eyes look bigger, or shinyer, or... or... or...

Sure, everyone knows you are lying, but you still fail to tell them the truth, and they don't know the truth.

-Rory

[Pye]

.

Elizabeth, begging your pardon for the following analysis, but the overall character of different intellects interests me, and there is something in yours that I've noticed you are doing that I think accounts for a number of the reactions you've gotten from people here. Too, I have a couple of days off.

Your thinking style is well-representative of the logic-for-its-own sake kind, and as a result, does not center itself around any particular specific values other than logic for its own sake. As a result, too, this kind of thinking acts something like an appliance that one applies to any subject. It stirs, sifts, analyzes, sorts, collates, and comes out with something it considers cohesive, as logic for its own sake. Probably sounds okay so far, but this logic-for-its-own-sake is not discriminatory; gets drawn into inconsequential if not inane activities; and the conclusions overall of what is drawn seldom cohere to each other. You have a sharp tool; you will want to do more with it than just wield it for its own sake.

So I think that some people here have noticed you are drawn to many things; that your logic-based discussions of those things sometimes produce the inconsequential; and that there is not [yet] a core-reason out of which your intellect operates. It operates (and operates), but it is not an end in itself. Because you assess your intellect highly, you seem to think you are done or something (and hence, the backs put up here or there). As much as I've noticed people here interested in the intellect's working for its own sake, I think some are interested more in the bigger picture of what the intellect concludes, right or wrong. What is missing from all your speech here, in my estimation, is what is at greater stake. It appears that your intelligence has not centered itself around a task yet; a project; a commitment. Or perhaps if it has, it is just not as large and huge a one as a lot of the people are trying to center themselves around here.

In other words, in other words . . . it is good to have a fine-working appliance. It is better to have something of the utmost to do with it.

Perhaps some of this can account for the accusations of prattling you've incurred in the past; the current disagreement with Sue, who, if I do not find completely clean and sparkling in her own approach, she at least has an approach, and for very high stakes.

I think you are just still young, and have not found what it is you mean to really think about yet, something something about a center, you know. When you do, I expect you will think well.

Yes, I know.
Who in the hell do I think I am, etc. etc. . . . :)


.

[kowtaaia]

How can one look at what the ego is and isn't without also looking at what Reality is and isn't?

Of course, we are reality, but it's the reality of illusion, the world of separate things and events. There is no 'other' when self is absent. "Where truth is, self (ego) is not." Thusly, the ego has nothing to do with ultimate reality, the state of truth.

I think there is a metaphysical dimension to the discussion of the ego, if only because most metaphysics is just an expression of ego!

Gossip is also an expression of ego. :)