Carmel wrote:Kelly: And, while you're at it, what evidence do you have that I have "absorbed the views of "wise misogyny" perfectly using the feminine receptive energy, now [I'm] simply spitting it back out like a perfectly programmed machine"?
Carmel: It's the evangelism and lack of solid reasoning, also the predictability of your responses. You speak like a religious person, as if you're views were not considered, but memorized. I don't see much independant thought in your answers regarding women, just a rehashing of what's been said already.
I'm not sure what your issue here is, actually. Is it:
- that what has been said already regarding women lacks solid reasoning, in your view? If so, what is it,
precisely, that you regard as "lacking solid reasoning", and what are you comparing it to?
- that anyone who understands, and accepts the concept of feminine-mindedness as enormously disadvantageous in the pursuit of wisdom, may not present it in the same way as others have done?
- that anyone who presents feminine-mindedness as enormously disadvantageous in the pursuit of wisdom, with passion, doesn't understand the concept?
- that anyone who presents feminine-mindedness as enormously disadvantageous in the pursuit of wisdom, in a way that recalls what others have said, doesn't understand the concept?
Also, When I've challenged your views, I get dismissive reponses. i.e. I asked you to list some positive feminine attributes, you know as well as I that they exist, yet you can't bring yourself to list even one trait. Your mind seems to be closed on the matter.
Not at all. Here is my response again:
Kelly: That's the only reason I challenged you on your "preferences". And, it is the only reason that I try to articulate what Woman is, and why I "boringly" explain how She's such an obstruction to philosophical progress. You see, Woman isn't everything. She's an unwanted tenant, noisy, irrational, and unhelpful. She can be kicked out. But only if one wishes to be fair-minded, reasonable, patient, strong-willed, and purposeful.
Carmel: I agree that those are admirable traits, that all of us should strive toward possessing; however, even if I manage to achieve all of those states of being, they would exist in conjunction with my feminine qualities, not instead of them. Also, there do exist some feminine qualities that are admirable. I won't list them now, perhaps you can manage this task as a testament to your "fair-mindedness"? ;)
Kelly: Fair-mindedness doesn't mean lying, in my view. If I thought feminine qualities included consciousness-supporting, I'd list them. But I don't see any such, or at least, not any that aren't improved by masculine qualities, and are on their own not substantial enough to list.
So, I was neither dismissive, nor closed-minded. I gave you a clear answer. I honestly don't see any feminine qualities that are consciousness-supporting, that aren't bettered by masculine qualities. Whenever I think of a quality that I see in women that would superficially be regarded as valuable, like their tendency to sit quietly and say nothing, it usually turns out that they're silent not from intelligence or patience, but because of arrogance (they think the conversation or the activity in question is rubbish), or because of ignorance (they can't contribute from embarrassment at their own incompetence, and are too shy to do anything about it).
The irrelevant responses you give me also confirm my perception. Also, where do I "make rash judgments about people before actually understanding their worldview"?
Carmel: I already addressed this more than once, again, you're not listening.
You addressed it how? You mentioned that I overlooked your valuing of autonomy, in favour of criticising your romantic preferences. I responded that it would do no good to focus on what I agreed with. But, again, to give you the benefit of the doubt (which I seem to do a lot these days), I explored your valuing of autonomy. You haven't responded. So what's going on, is not that I make rash judgments, but that other people are offended by my judgments.
Kelly: You haven't responded to quite a few of my questions, and you've been repeating that habit with Jupta also.
Carmel: ..because most of what I say, you don't hear.
It's self evident in your responses.
On the contrary, I push you to explain your responses. Replying that you don't want to explain your answers is blatantly ridiculous and discourteous. If you don't want to engage in a discussion, then indicate that you've had enough. People will understand that. Or say, "I'm not comfortable discussing this publicly." The way you leave your answers hanging ambiguously is an evasion, pure and simple.
Kelly: Maybe, the reason why you refused to explain why you found those certain things attractive or unattractive - the woodsy smell, for instance - was because you realised that it was something that you couldn't rationally explain, like an old habit of following a Feng Shui instruction.
Carmel: No, I could easily explain the preference.
Well, finally, Carmel.
I have a reverence for nature, the woods, in particular. I'm more likely to be attracted to a man who is down to earth, and appreciates nature as I do, hence the "woodsy smell".
Okay, but why not the odour of pig manure, since that is natural and down-to-earth. What about the bloody smell of a man who has butchered a goat? Is there less appreciation of nature in these things?
Kelly: I don't know why I should explore things I agree with. But if you would only explain why you found certain attributes attractive or not attractive, then the matter would be acceptable to me. It doesn't look very open-minded if you say what you value, but cannot explain why.
Carmel: You're wrong. It's was never a matter of not being able to explain, but choosing not to.
Why did you change your mind?
Kelly: Now, onto "autonomy". Is your meaning for "autonomy" the same as "individuality, thinking for oneself" or "being a law unto oneself, and never associating one's values or ideas with those of others, even if those ideas are true, because to align oneself with another person is to stop thinking for oneself" ?
Carmel: By "autonomy", I simply meant self reliant, not being dependent upon another. I meant it in the more practical sense.
Kelly: Do you agree that a person with a strong mind can walk in the shadow of another person without aligning themselves with them; they have no problem discriminating differences between their own thought and another's; and they can connect with others without going over to them?
Carmel: Suffice it to say, I know the truth when I see it. I can tell by the way it resonates, both intellectually and intuitively.
So, do you think, given this, that it is possible that someone who speaks about wise misogyny using the same terms as another can be self-reliant?
.
