People,
since this has turned into a long banter, you can ignore reading all of it, but please don't resort to responding in a tit for tat manner according to any one particular point of view. I might respond to only that which I deem fit, or respond in a fitting manner. Sorry for any inconvenience thence caused.
Pye, I hope you have the time, or you could read it piece meal. It will not go anywhere unless we loose this forum for a third time.
S: For example ball games against the Home and Living channel . . . . Does any one force one to chose what they chose?
P: If I recast conditioning and causes as a force, then certainly, one is "forced," compelled . . .
S: I understand conditioning, but what do you mean by causes? Natural causes? As in woman being caused to be a woman naturally?
P: I'm using "conditions" synonymously with "causes" here. By rights, we could say that conditions are the collected state, if you will, of causes, but then we'd just be stating the same thing, farther along.
I think I went a bit off track between conditions/causes, but this has brought up a good point though.
It is when you or anyone introduces the word "natural" -- as opposed to ??? -- as the source of a cause that trips me up logistically. In other words, the [historic] juxtaposition of natural vs. manmade. I have asked for some grounding of this distinction a couple of times. It implies that "man" stands outside of nature somehow, and on a definitional level, I can't accept that. It's an old thought; a religiously based one. In the grand scheme of the causal web, this distinction means nothing.
Let's say nature causes man to build his societies a certain way. The society is in place, and within it, more things are caused to be. What's the difference? Again, let's say nature causes women to be a certain way. She interfaces with others with this so-called nature, and causes other conditions to come about. What's the distinction?
Since when did "man" get his walking papers out of nature to juxtapose himself against it?
Answering the last sentence first; I didn’t say that! Ultimately, even a plastic bag is all-natural, but that is not what we are discussing here.
There is no distinction from the ‘nature’ point of view, but there is from the ‘natural’ point of view. Aren’t we all naturally caused to differentiate? One thing is absolutely sure and surely we both agree that there is nothing beyond nature, but isn’t that an another story as far as this discussion is concerned? For that matter, any discussion that isn’t about the nature of nature itself. If we end all discussions with those conclusions, or justify it by that reason, then there is nothing to discuss about to begin with.
We are not discussing the Ultimate Truth here, but applying logic to discern and understand how certain things come about, and what is their nature. I agree that ultimately there is no difference in any thing at all, so?… What about reasoning then? Is it that my reasoning says that ultimately there is no difference hence I should stop differentiating? But that is the essence of my consciousness. A consciousness that is now capable and curious enough to ask why? No other consciousness does that in my opinion.
If nature causes everything, and that is all one needs to understand in regard to any subject, because nature encompasses all, then we better throw out all other philosophies and reasoning with it. It is the same thing as saying that God does all, so don’t question it. I don’t think that is what you mean, so I think this justification does not really apply here.
By naturally caused I meant the physical sex, and I took conditioning for that which a person is exposed to after being born, but of course, both are natural, but that’s another story.
S: For example, physical sexuality is one of the major causes that naturally influence the conditioning of a mind, besides the suggestive conditioning. Would you agree to that?
P: This kind of synthesis is what I have been plying all along. And along with it, I challenge the weight placed upon the former (physical sexuality) and ask way more heavily after the latter.
Because the former influences much heavier being uncommon to both than the latter which is common to both, so again, all things being equal, we must see what we are left with. Causes are what make man a man, and women a women, but what has is actually made has to be discerned to all logical depths. That is, if one is caused to.
Too much evidence exists for the mimetic character of human beings and the soft-clay nature with which they emerge into the world world and are formed and conditioned by it (i.e. caused to be a certain way). If we hand everything over to "physical sexuality" as an immovable, pre-ordained force, we stop looking at the conditions and beliefs we have formed around it. If we stopped looking at that, we'd be closing off the open-end of consciousness.
I think you presume that
everything is being handed over to “physical sexualityâ€, but actually only certain qualities and capabilities are being compared, keeping that naturally caused difference in mind.
Before we are caused to be in a certain over all way, we are cause to be what we physically are. Conditions/causes don’t seem to change a male into a female and vise versa. And whatever the conditions/causes, does not change the fact of what we may call a male or a female mentality. If conditions/causes create a male or a female mentality, then it is just that. Conditions/Causes don’t render them, or any thing else equal in their nature, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to define them so. In not equal I don’t mean one is Greater than the other, (that’s what one thinks is being implied and that is what stirs up the ego), but the differences that the causes have created in them, what all characteristics do those differences have, and what can they achieve according to their own caused nature.
P: Sapius, I am interested to know your age, your generation. Would you mind?
Not at all, I’m in the mood, and actually I don’t mind disclosing anything personal about me at all, but have avoided such things for logical reasons. For example, my accurate age, because in that, you want to judge me according to a preconceived slot, according to your own expert opinion, through experience of course, about what must have influenced me, or created a style of thinking, or the amount of “maturity†I should have reached that is making me say what I say, etc. Etc. For each of the category I disclose about me, you already have a preconceived slot for it. I have personally dropped that kind of slot making since my teens. For me, knowing somebody’s age is not important. In my own personal experience I have never seen actual maturity come with age. So I don’t discount or place value on no one according to age, but his thinking. And it is very difficult to find a real mature person, of course, according to me that is. The way I operate and think now is not essentially any different than how I did in my teens. I have not actually gained any more “maturity†since then. My judgment and reactions to situations then are almost the same they are now. In fact, the more I experienced the more they confirmed what I thought I knew. If it’s any help, I’m actually thirty-eight. Tell me that my above thinking is wrong? And even if it is, It is mine however. How else can I learn if not from my mistakes? Ah! A very important thing. My father always told me that it is far easy to learn for ones own mistakes, than from others, but that is what one has to master. Which means to me, Learning not only form your own experiences, but others too, for they are no more illusiory to me than I am to them, hence real, hence what wins is only 'experience' in it's purest sense, which is Now. Of cousrse he actually meant it in the most wordly sense, the balance of the twist is how I conceive it.
When reading what I write, please try to take an actual split-momentary break at my commas, for that is how I actually speak. Another personal thing about me.
I could even tell you about more things about me, that I’ve had girlfriends off and on, before 32, not married, don’t intend to. I have lived mostly alone, but have never been lonely. I retired from “regular†work at 31, then again, I would hardly call that regular or retired. I conceptualize innovative commercially viable things or ideas, get them patented, and sell the patent or license it to corporate companies, still do at times since ideas come easy. I though that to be the best course for a living, leaving all the time in the world for me. Earnings from investments are more than enough. I did go to school, and three years of electronic engineering, a drop out because I spent more time on my own basically doing nothing, walking around anywhere at all, thinking about all that I could rather than attend my studies, a time that made me what I am since. I sleep very irregularly, and at irregular times for 4-5 hours at the most. At times I skip 3 nights, 2 are quite common, 1 is almost regularly. I have traveled extensively, still do, never experienced a jet lag as such. I am not very well read, I guess that is apparent. My experience of my environment is what has taught me the most, and of course, interactive discourses with the people that I met, which made me think, why don’t these people thing about THIS?! I never imposed my thinking on any one, rather questioned their thinking. I also owe it to my Farther, who never bared or hampered my thinking although he mostly never agreed. He passed away when I was 24. A family friend then told me ‘I’m sorry about your father passing away’, I told him, ‘don’t be, I’m not’. He was confused but said nothing. Years later, recently, when I had some discussions with him, he reminded me what I had said, because he now understood what I had said then, from the discussion that we were having now, he was around 30 himself then. Better late then never, Eh? But I’m not going to tell you all those things right now, all in good time.
Back to business…
I think there was a thread where I mentioned something along the lines of “super-imposing†two different and opposite realizations, and then looking at All from that perspective. So my responses below may be confusing or contradictory against my earlier expressions. I can think or be a "super-imposed" thing, but simply cannot express from that one "super-imopsed" perspective in one breath, because that is the nature of existence. It takes two for any thing to be hapenning, (duality), hence two perspectives made one in a single unified super-imposed though cannot be expressed as one, which in actuality is not ONE, but a super-imposed one, abstractly created by the two. Now one can bow down to that in Awe and worship it, or simply see it for what it is, the choice is theirs. I simply "experience" it abstractly from both, and the super-imposing thing is what has made me what I am.
And I am that I am, a
Self. (The one who said that earlier was not wrong. It holds perfect understanding, but no God of any kind said that, and I guess that you might now know how that came about, however, that's a different story. This might make many thing that I am making myself a God; no, no such thing, absolutely not.)
P: I don't mean to make light of the wonderment you seem to feel over humans reproducing,
I feel wonderment in watching an earthworm, so why not in that? And yet, I’m not married, or hoping to partake even the minimal part of that wonderment.
P: and I can't imagine why you think the human that gestates the little being is any more a creator than the man whose sperm it is that makes this possible.
No, not necessarily, to begin with, I know there is no “creator†at all, it is only the Now that exists, but ask that to a mother, what she feels when that little ‘alive’ being, a piece of her own flesh and blood, which a man can never ever experience, touches her hand with it’s little ‘alive’ fingers. If real reasoning is what most men are blind too, so are those 70% of women who are being blind to an otherwise incomparable experience gifted by nature only to them, in wishing it never were against something far lesser, which is satisfying a false ego. The father, effectively a sperm donor, is far from such a feeling, simply because causes do not permit.
P: This "much greater part" that you see tends to hold its physical ratio after a child is born, too. Can't do anything about the former condition (sheer physicality); can do many many things about the latter.
They may well do many many things about the latter, just that that doesn’t seem logical since it goes against their particularly caused nature. I find that, not making use of reason, also natural. Of course they have a choice otherwise. (remember that choice thread? Or are you saying now that there is no choice at all. I don't expect everyone to unserstand this) Well, I may be wrong, but Pye, as you rightly mentioned, that is how Ieeeee see it.
P: What this is also rife with is the implication that women who don't procreate would somehow be "useless" - you know - "what a waste! this person could/should procreate! who would turn it down?!" Why isn't such a dire privilege also the measure of a man?
I do not imply any such thing when I say that, you may presume that on my part though. But isn’t this caused too? Hence why lament over it? Those that take that wonderment to hold egotistical meaning may do, it is not so for me. What should have been caused or not caused is what one hopes or laments over, not realizing it couldn’t have been otherwise, including his hopes and laments, which particularly when realized, dissolve those hopes and laments in a sea of causality, essentially drowning his false ego.
P: Finally, how did you get from a survey that asked for a candid answer from women that if they could do it all over again, would they have still had their children -- how did you get from their candid "no's" to their "despising" and "sacrificing"?
Please read that in context…
S: One thing I don’t understand though, why do those 70%, naturally been made capable of bringing forth life, playing a much greater part than man in doing so, despise or sacrifice the partaking of an event that makes her almost a God, in favor of doing what?
They don’t value themselves for what they are, or value their own Genius so to speak, hence they don’t see it that way, but I do. I told you according to what I think, and what they should be looking into, logically speaking. In looking for a career, females are actually wanting to get back to work since the recent past has facilitated for them to lay back and relax, and that is making them bored, but before that, she had an equal share of work to do when man and was a hunter and gatherer, and yet did not complain about bearing a child or all the troubles that follow or have been being a female. Their false ego has strengthened quite a bit since then through worldly education. In a similar manner but in a different area, that applies to men too.
As a side note; I generally blend into whomever I’m talking to according to his thinking, so he knows that I understand his point of view, which generally I do actually. I even start speaking in his “language†using his terms and definitions. For one is reluctant in seeing things otherwise if told abruptly. Even otherwise, they will come to their own conclusions in time, if not right now, and whatever the conclusion, that really does not matter, not to me at least.
S: So all things being equal, why do men indulge in mind games and seem to excel at it?
P: To your last sentence (above), I say, yet again, that I have not closed-off the possibilities of a nature built into us -- a nature that we could only establish by seeing it in its pure, unconditioned state.
There cannot be an unconditioned state, for that is what defines a state And we are looking at a particular state, as compared to another, both provided in nature. Unconditioned in this context does not mean much.
S: I could have (been mistaken). Could you tell me what you actually meant by that? I have given my explanation to Zag above.
P: Sorry I haven't tagged and copied everything we need to retrace this, but here's what happened: I was on about women being considered as objects themselves; I think you saw the word "object" and swung it into a discussion about being objective in any debate.
Quite correct, this is what actually happened. At times, I may seem incoherent, but that is not because I lack internal coherency, but it is the so so many thoughts going on around in the mind and around the same time, that at times it doesn’t come out right.
S: BTW, do you have any children, Pye?
P: No, the first 40 years were a conscious decision against; the last decade or so, nature took care of it for me. How about you?
I don’t know, I’ve not been informed in that regard. :D
You see, I’m doing the same thing in asking you about having any children, as you did in asking about my age, we are trying to fit each other in a particular slot so we may understand where each of us comes from according to ones own preconceived slot. But trust me, I didn’t ask that for me to know and place you in a slot, but for you to understand your own majestic personality in what, or whatever you are. I don't know how else to say this... nor all that that I have already said.
.
I have been correcting and adding things while previewing, so some things may be misplaced, if so, please point it out, but please don't make any judgments before reading it all, and please remember, that is not all the I have to say, as yet.
Thanks.
.