What blind spot to men have?

[Carmel]

Robert:

To be fair to both neuroscience and to Weininger, I don't think such blanket assertions are entirely accurate. As with many sciences, the findings in neuroscience can be used to support varying subjective interpretations. The same can be said for writers like Weininger, and intrepretations of dead guys in general don't have the luxury of going directly to the source, so we're left to figure shit out for ourselves. Philosophy doesn't possess a methodology as such in the same way science must.

Carmel:

That's right. Weininger's "Philosophy" doesn't possess a methodology as science does. Weininger's views on women are stabs in the dark, more or less. He himself admitted that he was not qualified to analyze women. Frankly, I prefer the hard sciences to the "girly" ones like psychology. Funny that some masculinists critique women for entering the soft sciences, such as psych and sociology, yet there seems to be a demonstrable preference for this nebulous thing called "feminine psychology" here at this forum, as opposed to focusing on actual, empirical hard evidence.

Robert:

I don't think it's a true double standard since I can differentiate between plain ignorant hatred of women and the much more subtle value based system of thought that recognises a psychological barrier that needs attention, and for some, overcoming. I don't get hung up on the jarring words as long as they point to something valid. It's true that a double standard could exist on the superficial level, but I think that's more a result of the words and terms used if the scope of the definitions aren't understood to hold a deeper, more universal meaning and potential.

Carmel:

yeah, and I can differentiate between plain ignorant hatred of women and more subtle forms of hatred of women. The people here who hate women refer to them as objects and animals, rocks, cows, dogs, fish etc. The misogynists who spew forth this sort of bile plainly hate women. There's nothing subtle about it. Those who stand by and let it happen or who encourage it in a variety of ways, also hate women. You may want to stop and consider that you might be part of the latter category as are many of the boys here. I say "boys" because real men are secure enough in their masculinity and don't need to trash women to feel better about themselves.

[David Quinn]

Does this mean that your constant trashing of everyone here is a sign that you are not secure in your femininity?

-

[Bob Michael]

Wisdom attracts flies as well as wiselings. It is for everyone, including biting, swarming flies. Nevertheless one cannot be a coward and hide away in some yabby-hole waiting for better inhabitants to pop up.

That quite a feisty reply, Kelly. I like it! 'Wiselings and flies'. Hmmm. Men and brutes? Have you the wisdom to clearly know the difference, I wonder?

[Starbird]

Alex appears to have left the building...

[Carmel]

Does this mean that your constant trashing of everyone here is a sign that you are not secure in your femininity?

-

I really can't take you seriously when you show such shameless bias. There have been plenty of unwarranted and unprovoked attacks upon me and trashing of women, in general. Unless you are willing to chastise these attacks equilaterally, then you have no leg to stand upon and just look foolish in my eyes.

[Carmel]

Luke Breuer(to Alex):

I do apologize for any indication I gave that you in particular were trying to trash women. I have, however, observed a general trend in this forum to do that very thing.

Carmel:

Yes, Luke, it is a general trend in this forum. There seems to be a certain level of denial and general apathy about this very obvious and unfortunate reality.

Luke:

I intend to challenge people to firm up their arguments and support them with evidence. Without logical consistency, arguments are passionate fancy; without support by evidence, arguments have no guarantee of describing our world, but instead only describe a [perhaps very consistent] possible world.

Carmel:

...passionate fancy, indeed.

[Kelly Jones]

So for whatever reason he suicided, he certainly enabled his writings to come to us in pretty good shape.

He would have given us a lot more writings if he didn't commit suicide. I think that, had he lived, he probably would have become by far the greatest western philosopher.

I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer, because I had the nature of a Redeemer. - Weininger in his notebook.

Maybe. He may have turned into a married professor instead, if he was too intent on becoming a great man, and less concerned about God. We'll never know where he ended up.

[Kelly Jones]

I'm not sure how an holistically-percepted mind could possibly conceptualise with words, (what I term consciousness as distinct from preconsciousness), nor could possibly draw discrete boundaries over its experience. It would more engage the world by flushing or suffusing zones of the tapestry of perceptual experience with emotion, that in turn leads to physical action and mental processing. This idea of iridescent, coruscating emotional tides, ever-changing, seems to explain female psychology better than the idea that they are just retarded men.

If someone is totally drawn about by the nose by emotions, and thus inconsistent from one moment to the next, meaning, they're lacking in memory, then it's true they'd find it difficult to form any concepts. They're not conscious enough to be able to identify anything, even the fact they're conscious (which, arguably, they're not).

By the way, every conscious person's experiences are "wholistic" and "ever-changing", whether they're incapable of thought or not.


.

[Kelly Jones]

There have been plenty of unwarranted and unprovoked attacks upon me and trashing of women, in general.

Can't you see a difference between a generalisation about women and yourself?

Why would you assume that a description of a feminine trait that you don't identify with, still applies to you?

[Starbird]

Dear Kelly,

I agree that, in one sense, "every conscious person's experiences are 'wholistic' and 'ever-changing[,]'[ ]whether they're incapable of thought or not," but, I wish to paint the picture of a mind that is a species-level more integrated.

I agree with what you say about inconsistency leading to a lack of memory, which in turn extinguishes the development of concepts. But, I propose one further: that (aside from orgasmic response in both the concentrated and diffused varieties) women actually lack percepts because of their holistic emotional complex wedded to their fundamental Will.

When women see, they see by blindsight. The data reaches the brain, but, does not generate an experience of an object, but, rather, is processed along with all the other five non-orgasmic senses (touch, taste, smell, balance, and hearing), subconsciously, which interacts with their emotional complex, i.e. with their aware mind, and, in turn, feeds back behaviour into the unknown world. Women don't feel pain, they don't smell, they have no sense of balance, except in terms that these things form an indiscriminate mass amalgamated with their emotional complex. The only deviation is sexuality, as Otto Weininger articulated so well.

This fundamental difference in cognition is the solution to the riddle of the sexual ages. Women aren't just from Venus and men from Mars. Men are a mathematical equation and women are an octopus. They are united chiefly through cognition, at the highest level, and orgasm, at the lowest.

Yours,

"Starbird"

[Kelly Jones]

I like that you call women's response to the world "orgasmic". Orgasm is largely psychological, or rather, emotional. It's based on particularly vague but intense emotions, underlying which is a deep animal drive to bond secretly with a lover in order to strengthen social status and empower the ego. All experiences for the orgasmic organism are fed through that animal drive: sensory data is blurred and distorted to confirm the delusion. Sexuality is therefore no deviation from this phenomenon, and only if both copulators are equally animalistic would there be unity.

Some examples of the orgasmic, "octopus" mindstate of women:
- the inability to discern that other people have the right to hold different opinions
- belief in "empathy": that one can experience the emotions of others (which scientists believe is proven by the fact of mirror neurons, but which does no such thing)
- the need to touch, establish rapport, make eye contact, smile, and pretend you understand another person, as if other people have insecure egos and that the basis of confidence and strong individuality comes through praise and reassurance from merging with others
- debasing themselves to "make others feel better about themselves", which only reveals them to be stupid, insecure, and insincere
- a need to have other people's help, and indignation if it is suggested they do things for themselves (to make their closest relatives feel guilty by insinuating their lack of love and their neglect)
- the belief that others have control over them, such that there are only authorities and followers
- the belief that an independent woman who doesn't debase or minimise herself among her female friends, or join with them in putting men down, is rather a selfish, arrogant, mentally ill bitch, and who they'd love to help when she "falls flat on her face someday" to prove they're better than her
- a virtual pharmacopeia of remedies for semi-hysteria: aromatherapy, incense, meditation cushion, jewellery, pretty clothes, countless shoes, make-up, soothing fragrances, softening moisturisers, perfumed bed-linen, ironed clothes, daily showers, pedicures, massages, escapist romances, shopping, etc.
- long telephone conversations that do nothing but pump up the ego, or play around with ego dynamics (a little put-down of her friend, followed by a self-debasement to try to bond the friends closer in their misery)
- psychological fragility about the self, such that they need to stay clean and "pure" at all times (distaste for getting dirty, smelly, or sweaty; a need to wash up dishes and put them away; everything has to have its own place with no bleeding of boundaries)
- a proper house has strict demarcations as to the allowable activities for each room
- following rules rather than creating their own methods

That's all I can be bothered typing up at the moment.


.

[Dan Rowden]

Alex appears to have left the building...

Yes, Alex is taking a sabbatical to engage in other pursuits, so don't expect any replies from him for a while.

[paco]

What-ever goes up-must come down. Somewhat. Logical pathogens is what I percieve the indignate genome to be-lightly-recitfied.