What blind spot to men have?

[Carmel]

Starbird,

Using Bible passages and a suicidal "philosopher's"(quotes intentional) mere opinion to support what essentially amounts to a non argument, rather than relying on the empirical evidence that science provides...lord knows, we wouldn't want any actual evidence to get in the way of your egotistical fantasies.

In Genius Forum terminology, How very "feminine" of you, but hey, thanks for sharing the "dark" forces of your nature with us nonetheless. :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Your opponents here are not Generalists but more along the lines of the Scientism-peddlers of statistical ontologies rife in places such as the James Randi Educational Foundation, and the like. They have made a mental career of "not getting it" and have not learned to discriminate properly.

Hysterically funny how you manage to put down amazing Randi the discriminator pur sang in the same breath as you accuse people "aligned" with him not to "discriminate properly". I can see Alex attracts very high calibre fans :-) Please do ask Alex about the amazing synchronisity involving Jung and a scarab.

[Starbird]

Dear Carmel,

I value my egotistical fantasies very much, and will not suffer their disengagement from my mentation. I take feminine as you apply it to me as a compliment. But, when it comes to science, I'm afraid that you and I will soon part ways, for no science can prove my love is true, nor the love of my beloved for me is, too.

Yours,

"Starbird"

[Blair]

toad.

[jupiviv]

There are some aspects of reality that women are more aware of. For example, since women are generally more anxious in their psychology, particularly in social situations, women tend to be more acutely aware of other people's subtle signals - their body language, the nuances in their voices which might suggest hostility or judgment, the signals that express the ever-changing status of the social relationships around them, etc. Men, on the other hand, tend to be more focused on the content of conversation and block out a lot of that peripheral stuff.

That really depends on the definition of "reality". And because of that very fact, there are no aspects of reality that women are more aware of, since to be more aware of something you have to have a clear definition of it.

Mother Nature will have her way with all of us regardless of "MAN'S" egotistical attempts to control her...

Not all of us have bizarre rape fantasies, Carmel...

[Starbird]

Dear jupiviv,

Are you implying that women are in fact less aware of their environment than men, the self-conscious or subconscious anxiety regarding which in turn spurs them to pay, subconsciously or otherwise, more attention to interrelational subtleties?

Dost the fair sex straineth their ears
To light upon the dulcet soothement for their fears?

Yours,

"Starbird"

[jupiviv]

Depends on what you mean by "aware". I find it useful to define "aware" as "conscious", instead of simply perceiving information through the senses. Dogs are able to hear many more sounds than humans, but they probably don't compose music, or categorise those sounds scientifically.

[Carmel]

Mother Nature will have her way with all of us regardless of "MAN'S" egotistical attempts to control her...

jup:
Not all of us have bizarre rape fantasies, Carmel...[/quote]

Carmel:
You're a creepy, clueless lil' boy jup.

[cousinbasil]

Depends on what you mean by "aware". I find it useful to define "aware" as "conscious", instead of simply perceiving information through the senses. Dogs are able to hear many more sounds than humans, but they probably don't compose music, or categorise those sounds scientifically.

Dogs "probably" don't compose music? Why aren't you sure about that?

Can your thinking along these lines be summed up by saying that because more music has been composed by men, it is rational to conclude that men are more conscious than women?

[Carmel]

Starbird:

I value my egotistical fantasies very much, and will not suffer their disengagement from my mentation.

Carmel:

That's the same reason most people don't let go of their egotistical fantasies. They enjoy them too much. Well, at least your honest about your motivations which is more than I can say for some.

Starbird:

I take feminine as you apply it to me as a compliment. But, when it comes to science, I'm afraid that you and I will soon part ways, for no science can prove my love is true, nor the love of my beloved for me is, too.

Carmel:

Perhaps, you could explain what you mean by "beloved" as I have no idea what you're trying to convey here.

What do you have against science?

[Starbird]

Dear Carmel,

My beloved, is none other than my sister, Europa, finest moon ever clutched by the jealous Jupiter, whose pure, pale, and sacred flesh I wilt suffer queither man, nor woman, nor beast, nor any assemblage of titanium with mind of sand, to probe, nor even touch. Alternatives to her sweet kisses I forsake, in my mission to roam the wastes indefatiguably in her service on my faithful steed, that I may find her captor's castle, and storm it with main force or guile as circumstances agree, and behead her captor, god or not!, and reclaim her in my wearied embrace. Such is my beloved, and no science shalt be mine indicator in my love.

Science, I hold forth with as contested ground, its technic fruits lesser in beauty than the life forms crafted by the Deity, yet more beautiful than the tomb-sculptures of our Lithospheric Enemy. Science as an endeavour, in its sacred calling, is imbued with the spirit of the race, and is thus elevated to the level of Classical Art--the Art of discovery of the biotic and abiotic demesnes, for the greater glory of Man and the One who made him. Thus, science is dangerous, as dangerous as art, for it can be claimed by the Enemy and perverted, as the doctors of the Nazi Empire and its spiritual kith across the darkening centuries since vivisector Descartes performed his bloody intercourse with his canine counterparts, proved.

Yours,

"Starbird"

[Kelly Jones]

Um, looks like the poet has overcome the philosopher.

In answer to the question, I think men can create a blind spot to their own psychological pain during solitary introspection, while women can't. Women don't seem to be able to aggress against themselves, preferring to keep their own path comfortable, and putting the burden of spiritual growth on others. I don't think they can handle the stress, because they succumb to the emotional whiplash effect rather than driving onward to the goal. I think this is the same reason women haven't been the great explorers, iconoclasts, founders of religion, progenitors of new ideas - and indeed, why they have not had the capacity to become mass murderers, war generals, serial sex killers, or major criminals. It's the ability to take major risks, and keep the goal in focus despite tremendous upheaval in the fabric of reality.


.

[Dan Rowden]

Starbird,

...a suicidal "philosopher's"(quotes intentional)

Wow, ad hom x 100. Given up making actual points, Carmel? Seems that way.

[Carmel]

Most men are neither geniuses nor serial killers, but it's certainly more exciting and fanciful to look at the extreme ends of human behaviour rather than face the boring reality of the fact that most men are ordinary, average guys.

[Carmel]

Starbird,

...a suicidal "philosopher's"(quotes intentional)

Wow, ad hom x 100. Given up making actual points, Carmel? Seems that way.

I'm still waiting for your response to my comments on Weininger at KIR from several weeks ago, specifically the racist quote which you never responded to. Would you care to join me over there for a discussion on Weininger, Dan? Oh and Weininger was suicidal. That's reality, not an ad hom. His psychological problems are certainly not irrelevant to a discussion of his "philosophy"(quotes intentional). ;)

[Dan Rowden]

Please tell me which of his works you've actually read, in their entirety. Please tell me you're not like Robert who professes an understanding then admits he's never read a single Weininger work.

And what you wrote was a classic ad hominem.

[Carmel]

I read "Sex and Character" in its entirety, at Cornell.edu.

Yeah, and what Weininger writes about women is classic ad homs, calling them soulless, immoral, etc. His opinions are useless, meaningless and have no basis in reality. They're the deluded blatherings of a deeply psychologically disturbed individual.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, good, that's something. What was the racist quote and its context? I have no interest in KIR.

And I rather doubt you really get what an ad hom is and how it applies in actual practice.

[Carmel]

...and I have no interest in Weininger. I may dig up the quote, but it's not really a high priority at the moment.

Do you honestly think Weininger was anywhere close to being an "enlightened" individual?

[Dan Rowden]

My opinion of him is pretty much irrelevant to your glaring lack of actual arguments against him. He was certainly not enlightened, but nevertheless brilliant. You realise, of course, that you have to separate his empirical speculations with his more direct philosophical musings? You realise that the first part of Sex and Character was of the former nature? I personally don't take it all that seriously.

[Carmel]

Yeah, I read the book. He takes entirely too long to state the obvious fact that masculinity and femininity lie on a continuum, i.e. Georges Sand was a masculine women, Chopin was a feminine man etc. As for empirical evidence, most of what he says has been completely usurped by modern science, cognitive testing. His "philosophy", specifically his gender philosophy doesn't match reality. It amounts to nothing more than delusional, fantastical and ironically, henidic blatherings.

yeah, I don't take it seriously either. I don't know why any rational, thinking person would.

[jupiviv]

As for empirical evidence, most of what he says has been completely usurped by modern science, cognitive testing.

What would some of those completely usurped things be?

[Carmel]

The most obvious thing is that, there is no difference in women and men's IQ.

[Bob Michael]

I think men can create a blind spot to their own psychological pain during solitary introspection, while women can't.

In most cases I don't think men create blind spots to their "psychological pain", but rather that they are deeply and in most cases permanently desensitized to any psychological pain. Or more correctly that psychological pain does not really exist in them at all. And that this lacking of organismal sensitivity also prohibits any truly edifying "solitary introspection", since it inhibits true perception of their inauthentic humanness or maleness.

[Dan Rowden]

The most obvious thing is that, there is no difference in women and men's IQ.

Which, funnily enough, is almost irrelevant to everything Weininger wrote about the sexes.