The Sexes

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Jamesh »

No, he is just saying that the ego will create the subjective justification.




Is the greater good what your ego has learnt to be more beneficial to you or others or some combo thereof?

I think in relation to the future greater good for others is perhaps a zero sum game. Any good will incur unintended negative consequences.
For instance - Christian/leftie charity weakens everyone.

"Nietzsche's last man is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security. The last man is the goal that European civilization has apparently set for itself. The lives of the last men are comfortable. There is no longer a distinction between ruler and ruled, let alone political exploitation. Social conflict is minimized.

Nietzsche said that the society of the last man would be too barren to support the growth of great individuals. The last man is possible only by mankind's having bred an apathetic creature who has no great passion or commitment, who is unable to dream, who merely earns his living and keeps warm. The last men claim to have discovered happiness, but blink every time they say so"

This quote reminds me of myself, and I blink, as I know it is not my true underlying masculine nature. In many ways he seems to be describing a post-peak evolution into Woman-ness. The quote is an accurate description of what women tend to seek and are, except in terms of materialism, and in such a world I doubt many would blink.

Really the only certain greater good can be your own greater "above-animal" consciousness by increasing your understanding of the nature of reality.
Last edited by Jamesh on Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Jamesh wrote:No, he is just saying that the ego will create the subjective justification.
Thanks for that explanation.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:Yeah....sometimes violence can be justified.
Violence is always justified.
Why do you say that ?
Are you saying that violence is justified because it is the natural reaction of whatever provolked it ?
And the light goes on...
Do you think an adult beating a baby is justified ?
Yes.
Just because a natural reaction (like thunder striking), is being caused, dosn't mean a human being is justified (for whatever reason),
for committing acts of violence, when he has the choice of controlling his actions....

I don't think violence is always justified. There is way too much unjustified, random, mindless acts of violence to comprehend.....
And the light goes back out...
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Jamesh wrote:

Is the greater good what your ego has learnt to be more beneficial to you or others or some combo thereof?

What is good for the whole is good for me and vice versa ultimately, the whole is an extension of my ego.

I think in relation to the future greater good for others is perhaps a zero sum game. Any good will incur unintended negative consequences.

That doesn't mean that one shouldn't study or attempt for the best possible outcome.
Really the only certain greater good can be your own greater "above-animal" consciousness by increasing your understanding of the nature of reality.

I would agree.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The Sexes

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Orenholt wrote:
What is good for the whole is good for me and vice versa ultimately, the whole is an extension of my ego.
We live in an age that celebrates the petty and the mundane. This situation works well for the “whole” by justifying their petty and mundane lives, but what of the individual who doesn’t share those same values? Are they to bow down and surrender to the whole to retain the status quo?
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

sue hindmarsh wrote:Orenholt wrote:
What is good for the whole is good for me and vice versa ultimately, the whole is an extension of my ego.
We live in an age that celebrates the petty and the mundane. This situation works well for the “whole” by justifying their petty and mundane lives, but what of the individual who doesn’t share those same values? Are they to bow down and surrender to the whole to retain the status quo?
You cannot feed a child only candy.
User avatar
Getoriks
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:07 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Getoriks »

What is good in the eyes of the people is usually not what is actually good for the people.

Many will take that as anti-democratic arrogance, others, as wise compassion.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The Sexes

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Getoriks wrote:
I actually think it was brave and masculine of Orenholt to admit that she was nearly offended.
"Nearly offended" is a strange term. Can someone really be 'nearly' offended? Offended or not offended - yes, but nearly...

Taking offence is a purely feminine trait. It comes from not being in touch with your own mind. When this is the case, anything can offend, and often does. No offence was done to Orenholt, but to protect her from some imagined threat - poof! - an offence appears. You can see how this psychology is very useful to woman, for anything that is said against woman appears to her as an offence, and in this way her innocence is retained.
I think she is actually trying to understand the psychology of why she became nearly offended, so that she can overcome it. You cannot overcome something by simply stopping all thinking of it -- that is not transcendence or growth or maturity, but simple blocking out or ignorance or unconsciousness.
I wish Orenholt the best with her development. Growth and maturity can take a long time, or it can happen in a moment, the idea is to be ever ready. Opening your mind, along with considering your thoughts prepares the ground for that development.
User avatar
Getoriks
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:07 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Getoriks »

My thoughts exactly, Sue.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Orenholt's 'affectivity' or passionate desire to fix or have things fixed is interrogated.

Sue,
how is this,
I wish Orenholt the best with her development.
not coming from a sentimental place.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The Sexes

Post by sue hindmarsh »

"The best" is all there ever is, so you could describe my wishes as redundant.

Orenholt's expressed need to have woman respected because, as a woman that would be nicer for her, isn’t to my mind her being very exploratory. Though it matters little at what way she approaches this subject, for the truth of the matter will always be the same: respect for woman is impossible.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Kunga wrote: Do you think an adult beating a baby is justified ?
Dan Rowden wrote:Yes.

Please explain.
I have a real hard time comprehending henious crimes & such. It's THE reason I gave up my belief in a creator God.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

sue hindmarsh wrote: Taking offence is a purely feminine trait. It comes from not being in touch with your own mind. When this is the case, anything can offend, and often does. No offence was done to Orenholt, but to protect her from some imagined threat - poof! - an offence appears. You can see how this psychology is very useful to woman, for anything that is said against woman appears to her as an offence, and in this way her innocence is retained.
It's not merely about some imagined "innocence" it's about my perception of the truth.
If I think that I am a good person then of course I will react negatively toward the untruth of something bad being said about me.
If I think that I am a bad person then I will react neutrally toward something bad being said about me and I may even agree.
sue hindmarsh wrote: respect for woman is impossible.
Are you saying that respect for biological females is impossible or are you saying that the effigy of woman is impossible to respect?
Also, you did not reply to my post on why it's inaccurate to name this effigy "woman".
Orenholt wrote:
sue hindmarsh wrote:That's good. Now that you've got out of your own way we could discuss some of the issues you have with women being described as 'Woman'. Where do you want to start?
I don't mind some women being called unconscious, because some in fact are, but to make the word "woman" itself which already encompasses a certain group of people synonymous with unconsciousness when it doesn't apply to everyone within that group and actually applies to some people outside of the group is inaccurate.
And in addition to being merely "inaccurate", it's UNTRUTHFUL.
Kunga wrote:
Please explain.
I have a real hard time comprehending henious crimes & such. It's THE reason I gave up my belief in a creator God.
Who said that a creator god has to be good?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Orenholt wrote:Who said that a creator god has to be good?
Well...that was my initial impression as a child. The "Father" in heaven that loves all his children b.s.
Then my views as a teen changed, as I realized it wasn't a loving God anymore....but one that must not care...the absent parent....
Then finally as an adult, I realized there couldn't possibly be a God, with all the incomprehensible, horrific shit that life dishes out.
Finally... the realization of the inseperable condition of the Universe....
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Sue,
"The best" is all there ever is, so you could describe my wishes as redundant.

Orenholt's expressed need to have woman respected because, as a woman that would be nicer for her, isn’t to my mind her being very exploratory. Though it matters little at what way she approaches this subject, for the truth of the matter will always be the same: respect for woman is impossible.
Fair enough.
I wouldn't say a sage isn't making contact without experiencing emotion.
I would say afflictive emotions aren't present and felt experiences of serenity are.

A personality streaming from a wildly fluctuating emotional basis looks like an ameoba expanding and contracting according to the conditions.
puffing up and shrinking from moment to moment.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Kunga wrote: Do you think an adult beating a baby is justified ?
Dan Rowden wrote:Yes.
Please explain.
I have a real hard time comprehending henious crimes & such. It's THE reason I gave up my belief in a creator God.
All actions are justified by the doer, violent or not. "Unjustified violence" is basically a silly term. What we mean is we don't agree with or accept the justification given for any particular act. What makes your justifications better than anyone else's? That's the question. That's where this has been heading.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:
Kunga wrote: Do you think an adult beating a baby is justified ?
Dan Rowden wrote:Yes.
Please explain.
I have a real hard time comprehending henious crimes & such. It's THE reason I gave up my belief in a creator God.
All actions are justified by the doer, violent or not. "Unjustified violence" is basically a silly term. What we mean is we don't agree with or accept the justification given for any particular act. What makes your justifications better than anyone else's? That's the question. That's where this has been heading.


Don't you think being rational and logical, let alone compassionate, is reason enough to make a correct assessment of any situation and act accordingly ?

The doer could be a psychopath. Would you want a psychopath to make all your decisions for you or someone with a rational/logical mind ?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

I may think so, yes, but I'm asking on what grounds I, or you, might assert that to another. What makes our values better than theirs? Just because it's us? I mean, in my case that works because I'm special and everything, but ...
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:I may think so, yes, but I'm asking on what grounds I, or you, might assert that to another. What makes our values better than theirs? Just because it's us? I mean, in my case that works because I'm special and everything, but ...
On the grounds that a psychopaths', or emotionally unstable persons' judgement to beat a baby, is wrong,
As opposed to a sane, stable, rational,person judgement of the situation, would be to unharm a helpless being in their care

In other words, being rational and logical is correct behavior and irrational and illogical is incorrect behavior.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

What makes rationality better than irrationality? How about we admit at this point that it's simply what we prefer and stop imagining there's an objective basis from which to argue such a preference? I say that because there simply isn't one.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Dan Rowden wrote:What makes rationality better than irrationality? How about we admit at this point that it's simply what we prefer and stop imagining there's an objective basis from which to argue such a preference? I say that because there simply isn't one.
What about utilitarianism? The greatest good for the largest quantity.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

What about it? It's a preference like any other; a view, a perspective. Sometimes it makes sense (especially to the herdly) and other times it's totally destructive to the individual.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Dan Rowden wrote:What about it? It's a preference like any other; a view, a perspective. Sometimes it makes sense (especially to the herdly) and other times it's totally destructive to the individual.
But if it's REALLY the greatest good for the largest quantity wouldn't it necessarily been good for all in an ultimate sense?
And I know you can say something like "if you sacrifice a child for the entertainment of the masses they will be happy" but if we're looking for the GREATEST good it would not involve that and find an alternative.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:What makes rationality better than irrationality? How about we admit at this point that it's simply what we prefer and stop imagining there's an objective basis from which to argue such a preference? I say that because there simply isn't one.

Would you want your brain surgery done by someone that was a self-taught moron ?
Or a experienced,intelligent, well renouned Brain Surgeon, who went to medical school ?
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:What makes rationality better than irrationality? How about we admit at this point that it's simply what we prefer and stop imagining there's an objective basis from which to argue such a preference? I say that because there simply isn't one.

Would you want your brain surgery done by someone that was a self-taught moron ?
Or a experienced,intelligent, well renouned Brain Surgeon, who went to medical school ?
He's obviously going to pick the renown brain surgeon unless he's totally suicidal.
I think what he's really saying is that what one person considers "rational" another will not and it simply comes down to a matter of preference.
Locked