To be honest, I didn't respond because I couldn't find it. I did think about it and its a tough deliberation. I hadn't really given you all the details of our evolved relationship, myself and my roommate. I didn't think it necessary, but the fact of the matter is we rarely see each other. I work at night and she works in the morning, so we only see each other on the weekends. As far as my job goes I do virtually nothing all night except read and think in total silence. Then I come home and do pretty much the same thing for another 4 hours before killing some time on a game or movie and going to bed. So on average I spend 12 hours a day/5 days a week doing exactly what you suggested I should be doing. And another 20+ hours a week going over stuff with my roommate. The rest of my time is spent sleeping and posting on Genius Forum and Facebook. That is my life in a nutshell. I've read 40 books in the last year, I read a book start to finish today alone. Keeping in mind that none of these books are fictional or novels, with the odd exception. Typically they are philosophy, history or social science, and the occasional bit of biology or physics. I generally keep it pretty mixed up. This week its been Moral Psychology Volume 1 by Walter Sinnot-Armstrong and Experiments in Ethics by Anthony Kwame Appiah, so I've been thinking a lot about ethics and morality.Kelly Jones wrote:Animus.
I'm curious to know whether you regarded my trying to relate my findings about ego-dynamics to you as "reacting with hostility, contempt, or ridicule", in Atum's thread on the consciousness of women. You didn't respond, so I figured you had something to think about.
As above, I simply couldn't find the appropriate thread. I think I know which one it was but it was drowned by a plethora of other posts. I think you tried to fit my situation into a perceptual mold you've created. There is nothing wrong with this, there is not much else you can do and perhaps in most cases it would be dead-on. I submit that it had significance for me, I realize that my relationship with my roommate is a mine-field, I've stepped on a few mines already. The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent, if I just wall myself up in nowhereland all the time then I can't cut my character on anything tangible, I just become a recluse thinking he's got it all figured out. My struggle at the moment is in balancing my desire to spew truthful speak from my mouth, the problem is it can act as fire and burn people. Now, for me this is fine, I've accepted my position inside the fire. I'm happy to be burned, but they can't handle it, and I'm learning that it does me nor them any good to try to push them in. In the end they'd rather kill me than accept what I have to say. I've learned that it can be fruitless to speak of things and have began resolving to keep quite. I don't think this simply as a matter of ego-preservation, its not of fear of loss of relations that I think this. Its the fact that I have already destroyed or warped all of my relations. I have to sit here bound and gagged because they can't and won't accept it. Alternatively I can be a "good shepherd" and try to lead the flock to my understanding through a common method of deception, appeal to the ego.However, since you now don't mention whether you found all members of this forum to react thusly, or just some, I'm wondering whether you found my analysis unwarranted, but decided to let the matter slip away without mentioning anything.
I don't think that criticizing "women's unconsciousness" is all ego-driven, but I think it is in-part. It doesn't need to be framed in such an offensive manner, unless the goal is to offend women, in a dialectic fashion I can see the thought behind doing so, but by-and-large this won't be an effective means of communicating ideas to the likes of say Kunga. Now, within that nifty framework of masculine-feminine consciousness its enough to say that Kunga is too feminine minded to grasp the concepts and her offense is in-fact evidence of that. But this then is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, whether or not there was the intention to offend, it is interpreted with offense and thus the common reaction is one that fulfills the philosophy. The problem is that as such its not very effective at all with communicating new ideas, it more or less represents preaching to the choir on many occasions. The whole issue could be tackled from a different framework, substituting "feminine" with "Primary" and "masculine" with "Secondary" or if you don't like the feel of the word "Secondary" call it "Transcendent", then again if you are truly masculine minded why give a fuck what its called. You can still make the correlation between the behavior of women and the primary consciousness prototype. You can still say women tend to operate within that framework more than men, without making it sound like an inescapable defining characteristic of being a woman. In this way talking about it in such offensive terms can serve to elicit the opposite of a desirable outcome. It would be desirable that women were more masculine minded, but saying it in those terms only gets their guard up. This is a general problem I've been facing, as I illustrated above. I personally don't feel like I need anyone to cry to or lean on, I'm content being a philosophical hermit. My reasons for interacting with others are generally out of a drive to honor and glorify truth at any cost, which has led me slightly astray, I haven't achieved much in regards to glorifying truth as all my words fall on unprepared ears.Just going on a hunch here. I can't be sure. For instance, IJesusChrist posted his distaste about "men's egos" in Atum's thread, presumably meaning that he thought all misogynistic views were ego-driven, and then declared he'd be leaving because of the size of "internet egos". But he never addressed his challenge to me directly, I guess because he couldn't wrap his head around the "all misogynists are egotistical, therefore a female misogynist is.... um....". Thus, he says nothing, and slips away without openly addressing the matter at all.
So my hunch is that you hold a similar view: that criticising women's unconsciousness and analysing all the facets of its egotism, is only egotistical drivel. If so, would you like to investigate it openly, rather than leaving with these matters unspoken?
Of course, if my hunch is wrong, then no drama. Your first post in this thread seems to indicate I might be, but then if you find the forum to be characterised by people who maliciously attack the messenger who bears good news, then that would indicate I might not be......
This forum and its members suffers from a series of problems which are inevitable. With respect to my understanding, I just don't see a lot to be gleaned from repetitive debates on the objectivity of thought or the offensive nature of the debate around masculine-feminine duality. This is generally what goes on this forum, with a few exceptions. I got people telling me that consciousness is the intersection of energy and information and to me that is incoherent. You don't get anywhere with that, whoever thought that was a good idea is sorely mistaken. And yet, they are so sure of themselves that they can't hear any alternative, and that is the primary problem facing this forum or any forum or all of humanity. Not being open to other explanations. Now, I've considered the idea that consciousness is "energy and information", but the statement and supporting statements don't actually seem to solve anything, so I don't get how its intended to answer anything. So when 90% of what you see is pure garbage or unnecessarily offensive you, or at least I do, resolve to interacting with the forum less.
I'm looking at ways of refining viewpoints and appealing to different mindsets and furthering the evolution of human consciousness whole-scale. I don't plan to repeat the same mantra over and over again to myself hoping that other people might become enlightened from it, because I know that's not likely to happen and would be rare if it did. Besides that role is already being fulfilled billions of times over.