Men Behaving Badly.
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Men Behaving Badly.
-
Below I’ve reproduced part of a newspaper article I found in a leading Australian Newspaper with the heading “Home alone…retired men press wives to quit workâ€. The article mainly discusses the fact that women are retiring with far less superannuation than men do, which leaves women more financially vulnerable.
But my main interest in the article lay in the fact that a high number of retired men wanted their women to stay home with them. This first caused me to ask what was wrong with men that they couldn’t take care of, and occupy themselves at home without having to have the ‘missus’ around? But then I remembered that men usually don’t have lives outside of their work. So that when they retire, they don’t often have a network of friends to be able to call upon to help fill their days.
Of course, it is the opposite for women, as they usually have vast networks that include family, work-mates, neighbours, arts and crafts groups, girlfriends, book clubs, lunch clubs, political clubs, charitable organizations, sporting and fitness clubs, etc. This explains the high percentage of women that are quite happy that their men keep working while they stay home alone.
Some men may have established golfing, or drinking buddies over the years, and are able to call upon them to fill in a few hours. But most of the day is spent in her company, either trying to keep out of her way as she goes about her daily routine, or tagging along with her on outings to the shops.
To me, this isn’t a very fitting way to end a life of hard work and service. Then again, men bring this ugly state of affairs upon themselves, by wasting their precious lives providing for women and children, as well as building and maintaining society. Generations of men have given their lives over to this shallow and undignified occupation, as if this was the best they could be, and do. Blinded by their own small mindedness, they are unable to see that their true potential lies not as a slave, but as master of life and death.
Men needing women to hold their hand to see them through the last years of their life, isn’t that unfitting when you consider that woman, whether it be as mother, wife, lover, or society itself, has been leading him around since the day he was born. I suppose it’s inevitable that after a life time of enslavement to woman, he spend his last days on earth in a supermarket, pushing a shopping-trolley behind her.
-
The article:
Retired men are pressuring their working wives to quit their jobs and keep them company, according to the first detailed Australian study of retirement wellbeing.
But retired women want their men to stay in work for as long as they can, the study found.
The pressure on women to leave work and look after their partners has contributed to women saving far less in superannuation than men…
The study, Aspects for Retirement for Older Women…tracked the financial status and wellbeing of 20,000 people since 2001…
It found that more than 77 per cent of fully retired women said it was “important†or “very important†that their spouses continue to work. But only 37.7 per cent of retired men felt the same about their partners.
Of women who felt “forced or pressured†to retire, 21.7 per cent blamed their partners, compared with only 11.6 per cent of men.
“There seems to be a feeling in older women that they shouldn’t keep working after their men are retired,†Ms Warren (the supervisor of the study) said. “And retired women don’t want their men to make a nuisance at home.â€...
The study shows about 30 per cent of fully retired women have been “forced or pressured†to do so. Of those, 10.3 per cent felt “some†pressure from their spouses and 11.4 per cent felt “a lot†of pressure. Of the pressured men, however, only 4.9 per cent blamed their partners and 45.5 per cent blamed ill health.
-
Sue
Below I’ve reproduced part of a newspaper article I found in a leading Australian Newspaper with the heading “Home alone…retired men press wives to quit workâ€. The article mainly discusses the fact that women are retiring with far less superannuation than men do, which leaves women more financially vulnerable.
But my main interest in the article lay in the fact that a high number of retired men wanted their women to stay home with them. This first caused me to ask what was wrong with men that they couldn’t take care of, and occupy themselves at home without having to have the ‘missus’ around? But then I remembered that men usually don’t have lives outside of their work. So that when they retire, they don’t often have a network of friends to be able to call upon to help fill their days.
Of course, it is the opposite for women, as they usually have vast networks that include family, work-mates, neighbours, arts and crafts groups, girlfriends, book clubs, lunch clubs, political clubs, charitable organizations, sporting and fitness clubs, etc. This explains the high percentage of women that are quite happy that their men keep working while they stay home alone.
Some men may have established golfing, or drinking buddies over the years, and are able to call upon them to fill in a few hours. But most of the day is spent in her company, either trying to keep out of her way as she goes about her daily routine, or tagging along with her on outings to the shops.
To me, this isn’t a very fitting way to end a life of hard work and service. Then again, men bring this ugly state of affairs upon themselves, by wasting their precious lives providing for women and children, as well as building and maintaining society. Generations of men have given their lives over to this shallow and undignified occupation, as if this was the best they could be, and do. Blinded by their own small mindedness, they are unable to see that their true potential lies not as a slave, but as master of life and death.
Men needing women to hold their hand to see them through the last years of their life, isn’t that unfitting when you consider that woman, whether it be as mother, wife, lover, or society itself, has been leading him around since the day he was born. I suppose it’s inevitable that after a life time of enslavement to woman, he spend his last days on earth in a supermarket, pushing a shopping-trolley behind her.
-
The article:
Retired men are pressuring their working wives to quit their jobs and keep them company, according to the first detailed Australian study of retirement wellbeing.
But retired women want their men to stay in work for as long as they can, the study found.
The pressure on women to leave work and look after their partners has contributed to women saving far less in superannuation than men…
The study, Aspects for Retirement for Older Women…tracked the financial status and wellbeing of 20,000 people since 2001…
It found that more than 77 per cent of fully retired women said it was “important†or “very important†that their spouses continue to work. But only 37.7 per cent of retired men felt the same about their partners.
Of women who felt “forced or pressured†to retire, 21.7 per cent blamed their partners, compared with only 11.6 per cent of men.
“There seems to be a feeling in older women that they shouldn’t keep working after their men are retired,†Ms Warren (the supervisor of the study) said. “And retired women don’t want their men to make a nuisance at home.â€...
The study shows about 30 per cent of fully retired women have been “forced or pressured†to do so. Of those, 10.3 per cent felt “some†pressure from their spouses and 11.4 per cent felt “a lot†of pressure. Of the pressured men, however, only 4.9 per cent blamed their partners and 45.5 per cent blamed ill health.
-
Sue
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Suzie Q wrote:
The woman is the perfect companion for the ignorant man. She’ll put up with his lame opinions and take his word as the gospel. And he can mold her to his will while keeping a superior image of himself.
Many women are too submissive to rebel. Moreover as long as their man is helping to provide food, clothes, shelter and as long as he will listen to her emotional rants and fuel her sensational cravings then she will support him to the end.
And he can still be negative in an incredibly shallow way and never be exposed for the monster he is.
Ignorant man and woman are the perfect match for each other, they are like two pigs rolling around in shit together.
Sue wrote:
Many arguments between men and women are based on the fact that all men want to do with their partner is have sex while all the women want to do is to take their man out on shallow social functions, however both are false.
Sue wrote:
And many women are attached to this role and will not let it go.
For instance: my mother will not cease being my slave even though I have made countless attempts to do things for myself. She gets too much pleasure out of serving me and she derives meaning and purpose from doing these tasks.
Moreover everytime I have made attempts to do house chores, I can tell she is irritated because she wants to be the one doing them for me. I can see it causes her much suffering so I allow her to be my slave.
There is nothing else I can do, The weaker will wins over truth in these cases. The sage is like water, unless the actions of others cause suffering directly to him then he will allow people to do whatever they please.
Many men have grown accustomed to having women as slaves. And two men can only sit around being negative for so long before one feels inferior and walks out the door.But my main interest in the article lay in the fact that a high number of retired men wanted their women to stay home with them.
The woman is the perfect companion for the ignorant man. She’ll put up with his lame opinions and take his word as the gospel. And he can mold her to his will while keeping a superior image of himself.
Many women are too submissive to rebel. Moreover as long as their man is helping to provide food, clothes, shelter and as long as he will listen to her emotional rants and fuel her sensational cravings then she will support him to the end.
And he can still be negative in an incredibly shallow way and never be exposed for the monster he is.
Ignorant man and woman are the perfect match for each other, they are like two pigs rolling around in shit together.
Sue wrote:
Yes and no, allow me to add to this generalization. Many men I know are reluctant to do anything with their women. The only things men enjoy with their women is sex, food, drink, self-aggrandizement etc. When she wants to do something like browse around at the mall, many men have an instinctive negativity that rejects anything that isn’t practical to themselves.Some men may have established golfing, or drinking buddies over the years, and are able to call upon them to fill in a few hours. But most of the day is spent in her company, either trying to keep out of her way as she goes about her daily routine, or tagging along with her on outings to the shops.
Many arguments between men and women are based on the fact that all men want to do with their partner is have sex while all the women want to do is to take their man out on shallow social functions, however both are false.
Sue wrote:
Man is born a child and most die as a child and this is the sad fact of the matter. Women are the symbol of mother for most men their entire lives.Men needing women to hold their hand to see them through the last years of their life, isn’t that unfitting when you consider that woman, whether it be as mother, wife, lover, or society itself, has been leading him around since the day he was born. I suppose it’s inevitable that after a life time of enslavement to woman, he spend his last days on earth in a supermarket, pushing a shopping-trolley behind her.
And many women are attached to this role and will not let it go.
For instance: my mother will not cease being my slave even though I have made countless attempts to do things for myself. She gets too much pleasure out of serving me and she derives meaning and purpose from doing these tasks.
Moreover everytime I have made attempts to do house chores, I can tell she is irritated because she wants to be the one doing them for me. I can see it causes her much suffering so I allow her to be my slave.
There is nothing else I can do, The weaker will wins over truth in these cases. The sage is like water, unless the actions of others cause suffering directly to him then he will allow people to do whatever they please.
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
cosmic_prostitute wrote:
How well you have been trained. You say you “allow†your mother to be your slave – ha! It is through your actions that she exists; which means that it is you that is the slave, and she your master.
Women are the masters of all - except for the sage. The sage is the only man capable of not creating the circumstances for her existence.
-
Sue
For instance: my mother will not cease being my slave even though I have made countless attempts to do things for myself. She gets too much pleasure out of serving me and she derives meaning and purpose from doing these tasks.
Moreover everytime I have made attempts to do house chores, I can tell she is irritated because she wants to be the one doing them for me. I can see it causes her much suffering so I allow her to be my slave.
How well you have been trained. You say you “allow†your mother to be your slave – ha! It is through your actions that she exists; which means that it is you that is the slave, and she your master.
Women are the masters of all - except for the sage. The sage is the only man capable of not creating the circumstances for her existence.
The sage is not that syrupy bit of slop you depict him as above. The sage is like fire: fuelled by Truth, he destroys the hopes and dreams of the world. A lucky few welcome this suffering; and from these few, one or two may also become like fire. Most though, in the vain hope of avoiding this force of Nature, submerge themselves even deeper into the murkiness of the lies and corruption which comprise their lives.There is nothing else I can do, The weaker will wins over truth in these cases. The sage is like water, unless the actions of others cause suffering directly to him then he will allow people to do whatever they please.
-
Sue
Sue,
Your responses to CP coincide with my thoughts on how man has come to be the slave of women. I think that long ago man grew bored with his life when he started to advance beyond the 24/7 demands of being a hunter/gatherer. This boredom and discontent drove him to create something to idolize, thus creating Woman. He needed someone to depend on him to gain him self-worth. He needed someone to tell him what a good job he was doing. He needed something to live for. Alas, man forgot that women are human too. Now he is her slave, completely unaware of his sad state, a prisoner of his own devise. Reminds me of the story about Frankenstein. What he thought was his greatest creation turned out to be his demise.
An interesting quote from the book where Frankenstein warns his friend to take a different path in life after he realizes what a tremendous mistake he has made:
Frankenstein tells Walton to "'seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."
(The story of Frankenstien was written by a woman.)
Your responses to CP coincide with my thoughts on how man has come to be the slave of women. I think that long ago man grew bored with his life when he started to advance beyond the 24/7 demands of being a hunter/gatherer. This boredom and discontent drove him to create something to idolize, thus creating Woman. He needed someone to depend on him to gain him self-worth. He needed someone to tell him what a good job he was doing. He needed something to live for. Alas, man forgot that women are human too. Now he is her slave, completely unaware of his sad state, a prisoner of his own devise. Reminds me of the story about Frankenstein. What he thought was his greatest creation turned out to be his demise.
An interesting quote from the book where Frankenstein warns his friend to take a different path in life after he realizes what a tremendous mistake he has made:
Frankenstein tells Walton to "'seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."
(The story of Frankenstien was written by a woman.)
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Sue wrote:
We are barking from two different sides of the tree here. You are saying fire, and I am saying water, The sage is not strong-willed as you suggest, you are saying that he unleashes his fury of truth onto anyone that stands in his way, however I’ve been this man and he is a manic…this man lacks sensitivity, the sage treats each person differently depending on their psychological awareness, you are attempting to create a universal rule, but this rule will become a principle from which you act however this is a dead thing.
I’ve come to learn in time that the sage does not move unless someone pokes him…
Sue wrote:
The sage is pretty much dead.
In terms of changing people he sees everything as completely futile.
The sage is like an apple core that has been randonly thrown into a toilet bowl. The apple core soon discovers that he is surrounded by pieces of feces that he must learn to live with. And the fewer times he bumps into them the better because that’s the less feces he gets on himself.
The sage yearns for that glorious day when someone walks by and spots the contents in the toilet only to flush them all into oblivion. - - Joke.
This is a very romantic view and I’m sure you derive a lot of self-esteem from it.The sage is like fire: fuelled by Truth, he destroys the hopes and dreams of the world. A lucky few welcome this suffering; and from these few, one or two may also become like fire. Most though, in the vain hope of avoiding this force of Nature, submerge themselves even deeper into the murkiness of the lies and corruption which comprise their lives.
We are barking from two different sides of the tree here. You are saying fire, and I am saying water, The sage is not strong-willed as you suggest, you are saying that he unleashes his fury of truth onto anyone that stands in his way, however I’ve been this man and he is a manic…this man lacks sensitivity, the sage treats each person differently depending on their psychological awareness, you are attempting to create a universal rule, but this rule will become a principle from which you act however this is a dead thing.
I’ve come to learn in time that the sage does not move unless someone pokes him…
Sue wrote:
Again, you are attempting to create a universal rule for all conditions. The sage is powerless. Her will is much more relentless, stubborn and able to muster up the necessary emotional energy to rebel more often than his, all he can do is stay the hell away from people and the people he is stuck with then he allows them to do their business.The sage is the only man capable of not creating the circumstances for her existence.
The sage is pretty much dead.
In terms of changing people he sees everything as completely futile.
The sage is like an apple core that has been randonly thrown into a toilet bowl. The apple core soon discovers that he is surrounded by pieces of feces that he must learn to live with. And the fewer times he bumps into them the better because that’s the less feces he gets on himself.
The sage yearns for that glorious day when someone walks by and spots the contents in the toilet only to flush them all into oblivion. - - Joke.
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Nick wrote:
Taking all this into account, you can see why most men will never question their lives, because as far as they are concerned, they are doing what nature intended for them. They consider that they need do nothing more than do their job, provide for their family, pay their taxes, and their lives will be considered a success. The only time some men question this, is in their late teens, and when they are middle-aged. It is then that they search around for answers to quell the horrible fear that their life is totally worthless. They ask whether or not 'being a man' really is just providing for, and protecting a family? Are they really just animals, with animal impulses - or have they the potential for something far greater? But these questions are usually left unanswered as the young men reach their early twenties, find love, buy a house, have children, and work hard for forty years, retire and die. The mid-life crises guys are too old to look too deeply for the answers to their questions, and usually satisfy themselves with a new woman, a faster car, more booze, or just fall into depression and stay that way until they die. All up, most men find the easiest path, and go down it. And of course, the easiest path is the one that fits in with the goals of society - which means that most men travel in circles.
Women, on the other hand, are born fully formed into their lives. So, unlike men, they never have to question anything about their lives. This means that the opportunity never arises for them to change. Without the ability to change, women were never, and can never become human.
So it isn’t that men have “forgotten that women are human†- they’ve forgotten that they as men, have the potential to become human. They can ask those questions and find answers to them that may influence not only their lives, but also the whole of society.
I don’t really find the story of Frankenstein and his monster that inspiring though. It is too much based on the old formula: do bad, and bad comes back to you. Or in this case: mad scientist (male), did something he ought not to have done, and then has to pay the price for his folly. Nothing new there.
What if she’d made the monster a success? Instead of being a gothic tale, it would have become a work of science fiction - predicting our modern idea of cloning. What about if she’d made the monster a true philosopher? Can you imagine it talking about cause and effect, and how all knowledge is subjective? What about if it confronts Frankenstein during a celebratory party held to honour his 'great accomplishment', and tells him that he can’t claim anything as his accomplishment, as all things are the work of the Infinite?
Now there’s a book for you!
-
Sue
I see what you are driving at, but I’d say it all happened much earlier in our evolution. It makes more sense that woman and the male ego arose together, due to their interdependence on one another. She needs direction, and he needs something to direct - a great combination for the progress of our species.Your responses to CP coincide with my thoughts on how man has come to be the slave of women. I think that long ago man grew bored with his life when he started to advance beyond the 24/7 demands of being a hunter/gatherer. This boredom and discontent drove him to create something to idolize, thus creating Woman. He needed someone to depend on him to gain him self-worth. He needed someone to tell him what a good job he was doing. He needed something to live for.
Males and females are both slaves to their hormones. Both driven to pair bond, produce offspring, and then spend decades caring and providing for their young. And all this effort goes to ensure that there is another generation to carry on creating another generation – and so on, throughout time. The individuals involved aren’t important, as they are just pawns in the survival of our species. Society, which relies on pair bonding, provides the smooth progress for each generation to arise and fall away.Alas, man forgot that women are human too. Now he is her slave, completely unaware of his sad state, a prisoner of his own devise.
Taking all this into account, you can see why most men will never question their lives, because as far as they are concerned, they are doing what nature intended for them. They consider that they need do nothing more than do their job, provide for their family, pay their taxes, and their lives will be considered a success. The only time some men question this, is in their late teens, and when they are middle-aged. It is then that they search around for answers to quell the horrible fear that their life is totally worthless. They ask whether or not 'being a man' really is just providing for, and protecting a family? Are they really just animals, with animal impulses - or have they the potential for something far greater? But these questions are usually left unanswered as the young men reach their early twenties, find love, buy a house, have children, and work hard for forty years, retire and die. The mid-life crises guys are too old to look too deeply for the answers to their questions, and usually satisfy themselves with a new woman, a faster car, more booze, or just fall into depression and stay that way until they die. All up, most men find the easiest path, and go down it. And of course, the easiest path is the one that fits in with the goals of society - which means that most men travel in circles.
Women, on the other hand, are born fully formed into their lives. So, unlike men, they never have to question anything about their lives. This means that the opportunity never arises for them to change. Without the ability to change, women were never, and can never become human.
So it isn’t that men have “forgotten that women are human†- they’ve forgotten that they as men, have the potential to become human. They can ask those questions and find answers to them that may influence not only their lives, but also the whole of society.
I understand why you chose the quote, but I don’t think many men really consider woman to be a monster. There will be times in his life when he will consider her darkly, and call her a pain, a witch, a bitch, a whore, and many other terms of hatred. But for much of his life he will think of her in terms of endearment. Sometimes she will even appear to him to be an angel, or goddess.Reminds me of the story about Frankenstein. What he thought was his greatest creation turned out to be his demise.
An interesting quote from the book where Frankenstein warns his friend to take a different path in life after he realizes what a tremendous mistake he has made:
Frankenstein tells Walton to "'seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."
Yes, Frankenstein is a great gothic tale, and its author Mary Shelly has an interesting background. Coming from famous parents: her mother was author and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, and her father was philosopher William Godwin; as well as having been the wife of the poet Shelly - seemly caused her some grief, as she was always trying to measure up to them. Becoming a published author probably eased that burden, but like many children of the famous and infamous, she longed for a more anonymous life.(The story of Frankenstien was written by a woman.)
I don’t really find the story of Frankenstein and his monster that inspiring though. It is too much based on the old formula: do bad, and bad comes back to you. Or in this case: mad scientist (male), did something he ought not to have done, and then has to pay the price for his folly. Nothing new there.
What if she’d made the monster a success? Instead of being a gothic tale, it would have become a work of science fiction - predicting our modern idea of cloning. What about if she’d made the monster a true philosopher? Can you imagine it talking about cause and effect, and how all knowledge is subjective? What about if it confronts Frankenstein during a celebratory party held to honour his 'great accomplishment', and tells him that he can’t claim anything as his accomplishment, as all things are the work of the Infinite?
Now there’s a book for you!
-
Sue
That's probably true, but I was talking about the way men and women fall in love with eachother. It must have been developed at some point because there are no other species on this planet that demonstrate such a thing. I think it developed when our species had the spare time in order to do so. They wanted to turn something primitive like reproduction and mating into something more complicated, to give it more meaning. By "falling in love" with eachother, humans felt they were experiencing something magical, making their lives feel special and more meaningful.sue hindmarsh wrote: I see what you are driving at, but I’d say it all happened much earlier in our evolution. It makes more sense that woman and the male ego arose together, due to their interdependence on one another. She needs direction, and he needs something to direct - a great combination for the progress of our species.
I agree with that, but some women must have potential, although less than men, to become human. You, a woman (a female-being who has ovaries and a uterus), have demonstrated this potential by questioning your existence and purpose. You seem to have detached yourself to a certain extent from the influence of hormones and emotion.sue hindmarsh wrote:Males and females are both slaves to their hormones. Both driven to pair bond, produce offspring, and then spend decades caring and providing for their young. And all this effort goes to ensure that there is another generation to carry on creating another generation – and so on, throughout time. The individuals involved aren’t important, as they are just pawns in the survival of our species. Society, which relies on pair bonding, provides the smooth progress for each generation to arise and fall away.
Taking all this into account, you can see why most men will never question their lives, because as far as they are concerned, they are doing what nature intended for them. They consider that they need do nothing more than do their job, provide for their family, pay their taxes, and their lives will be considered a success. The only time some men question this, is in their late teens, and when they are middle-aged. It is then that they search around for answers to quell the horrible fear that their life is totally worthless. They ask whether or not 'being a man' really is just providing for, and protecting a family? Are they really just animals, with animal impulses - or have they the potential for something far greater? But these questions are usually left unanswered as the young men reach their early twenties, find love, buy a house, have children, and work hard for forty years, retire and die. The mid-life crises guys are too old to look too deeply for the answers to their questions, and usually satisfy themselves with a new woman, a faster car, more booze, or just fall into depression and stay that way until they die. All up, most men find the easiest path, and go down it. And of course, the easiest path is the one that fits in with the goals of society - which means that most men travel in circles.
Women, on the other hand, are born fully formed into their lives. So, unlike men, they never have to question anything about their lives. This means that the opportunity never arises for them to change. Without the ability to change, women were never, and can never become human.
So it isn’t that men have “forgotten that women are human†- they’ve forgotten that they as men, have the potential to become human. They can ask those questions and find answers to them that may influence not only their lives, but also the whole of society.
sue hindmarsh wrote: I understand why you chose the quote, but I don’t think many men really consider woman to be a monster. There will be times in his life when he will consider her darkly, and call her a pain, a witch, a bitch, a whore, and many other terms of hatred. But for much of his life he will think of her in terms of endearment. Sometimes she will even appear to him to be an angel, or goddess.
I actually used that quote in relation to a man who has become conscious of their meaningless lives after it's too late. Like an old empty man who tells a young man about how he wishes he had done more with his life than the chase women, money, and other wordly attachments. No doubt a man who never becomes conscious of this will probably just assume he never found the right woman!
That certainly would have been a much more impressive story. Maybe not as popular amongst the herd, but impressive indeed.sue hindmarsh wrote:Yes, Frankenstein is a great gothic tale, and its author Mary Shelly has an interesting background. Coming from famous parents: her mother was author and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, and her father was philosopher William Godwin; as well as having been the wife of the poet Shelly - seemly caused her some grief, as she was always trying to measure up to them. Becoming a published author probably eased that burden, but like many children of the famous and infamous, she longed for a more anonymous life.
I don’t really find the story of Frankenstein and his monster that inspiring though. It is too much based on the old formula: do bad, and bad comes back to you. Or in this case: mad scientist (male), did something he ought not to have done, and then has to pay the price for his folly. Nothing new there.
What if she’d made the monster a success? Instead of being a gothic tale, it would have become a work of science fiction - predicting our modern idea of cloning. What about if she’d made the monster a true philosopher? Can you imagine it talking about cause and effect, and how all knowledge is subjective? What about if it confronts Frankenstein during a celebratory party held to honour his 'great accomplishment', and tells him that he can’t claim anything as his accomplishment, as all things are the work of the Infinite?
Now there’s a book for you!
-
Sue
Well, that's kind of conjectural. With most species, you can't just ask them, "Are you in love?" and get an answer in English. But there are a variety of species that mate for life (e.g., some penguins), and there are many species with elaborate courtship rituals.Nick wrote:That's probably true, but I was talking about the way men and women fall in love with eachother. It must have been developed at some point because there are no other species on this planet that demonstrate such a thing.
Even my pair of bearded dragons seem to show a certain affection for each other - but that's certainly a matter of interpretation. I know there are things about their behavior that I do not understand. They also seem to have spats occasionally and want to spend time apart.
It makes it more dramatic - there's more of a story. People love a good story. And I think a lot of people would claim that the meaning of life has something to do with love. But I don't think there's anything especially human about it.By "falling in love" with eachother, humans felt they were experiencing something magical, making their lives feel special and more meaningful.
Well if you look at animals, you see that when they mate, the purpose of their actions is almost always for the survival of the species. Where humans go beyond just insuring the survival of their species, turning something primitive into the center, or meaning of their lives. Examples of this are weddings and romantic gestures. It has nothing to do with our species survival, and everything to do with self gratification. You could argue that children grow up to be more successful or what have you in a home where the parents are happily married. In a way this is helping to insure the survival of the species, but only because certain societies support and benefit from this type of thing.DHodges wrote: Well, that's kind of conjectural. With most species, you can't just ask them, "Are you in love?" and get an answer in English. But there are a variety of species that mate for life (e.g., some penguins), and there are many species with elaborate courtship rituals.
Even my pair of bearded dragons seem to show a certain affection for each other - but that's certainly a matter of interpretation. I know there are things about their behavior that I do not understand. They also seem to have spats occasionally and want to spend time apart.
I agree, there is nothing human about it. It's a basic primal procedure that is shared by many species on this Earth. What is human about it, is the way people complicate it and try to make something primal like mating and reproduction represent something magical and heavenly. It's strange using the word human to describe this action, which is why I'm using it loosely. Because you don't see this demonstrated in any other aspect of our planet's evironment, but it is far from representing what actually gives us the potential to truly become human. It is quite the anomaly...DHodges wrote:It makes it more dramatic - there's more of a story. People love a good story. And I think a lot of people would claim that the meaning of life has something to do with love. But I don't think there's anything especially human about it.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Nick wrote:
I think it makes sense that the trait of higher intelligence would come with the price of having a little higher maintenance, so it's possible that things like marriage ceremonies could in fact have been necessary for our survival.Well if you look at animals, you see that when they mate, the purpose of their actions is almost always for the survival of the species. Where humans go beyond just insuring the survival of their species, turning something primitive into the center, or meaning of their lives. Examples of this are weddings and romantic gestures. It has nothing to do with our species survival, and everything to do with self gratification.
Certainly two parents are better than one when raising a child, no doubt about that. But the actual celebration of marriage, romantic gestures, and things of that nature are superfluous. There is no need for them in order for our species survival, it is simply and solely for the purpose of self-gratification. Like I said earlier, the only reason these things can at times be beneficial is because society has been designed to support and benefit from these things. This is only because our society is one that is built for self gratification. If two parents wanted to raise a child together until they were able to live on their own, that makes perfect sense for the species survival. Although this is not the sole reason a man and woman get married. People try to make it last, and do it in the name of God or something of that nature. They end up doing things they normally wouldn't do just to be able to lay claim to their significant other. They think they are displaying nobility and responsibility when in fact they are just displaying how selfish they are. Again this whole scenario gives people a reason to live, or as Dhodges put it, "people like a good story".Matt Gregory wrote:Nick wrote: I think it makes sense that the trait of higher intelligence would come with the price of having a little higher maintenance, so it's possible that things like marriage ceremonies could in fact have been necessary for our survival.
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Nick,
A reply to your earlier post follows, but in regard to your post above, I have to say that I agree that as a species we could raise and care for our children without all the egotistical nonsense that usually goes with it. Children’s needs are simple, but adults usually make everything so complicated and confusing that most kids miss out on having those needs met.
-
Nick wrote:
Pair bonding has been crucial not only for procreation, but equally so to create social cohesion. When you look at the complex social codes and laws that exist in hunter and gatherer societies, such as the Australian Aborigine, it becomes clear that modern man hasn’t developed socially much at all.
Our early ancestors may not have been thinking about white wedding dresses and love poems when they held each other close, but they were experiencing the same hormone explosion as we do. As different cultures developed, different traditions and social mores grew around pair bonding. Much of our idea about ‘falling in love’ stems from medieval Europe and its age of courtly love.
So you are correct when you say that when our ancestors had more time on their hands they were able to create ever more elaborate ‘stories’ about the significance of love, but those stories were, and are, just icing on the cake. No matter what era, climate or culture you come from – ‘love’ has been, and remains to be, the drug most people do, or want to, indulge in.
You are correct that most females are women, but there are an ever growing number of males racing to join her ranks.
I’m female, but I’m lucky not to have too much woman in me. I’m also lucky to have a plodding nature and a strong love of Truth. Both have allowed me to cross many barriers caused by my emotional attachments, and to keep on going onwards at a steady pace.
-
Sue
A reply to your earlier post follows, but in regard to your post above, I have to say that I agree that as a species we could raise and care for our children without all the egotistical nonsense that usually goes with it. Children’s needs are simple, but adults usually make everything so complicated and confusing that most kids miss out on having those needs met.
-
Nick wrote:
I agree with Matt and Dave’s posts about how ‘love’ and ‘marriage’ are really just part of our animal nature, and have assisted our survival.I was talking about the way men and women fall in love with each other. It must have been developed at some point because there are no other species on this planet that demonstrate such a thing. I think it developed when our species had the spare time in order to do so. They wanted to turn something primitive like reproduction and mating into something more complicated, to give it more meaning. By "falling in love" with each other, humans felt they were experiencing something magical, making their lives feel special and more meaningful.
Pair bonding has been crucial not only for procreation, but equally so to create social cohesion. When you look at the complex social codes and laws that exist in hunter and gatherer societies, such as the Australian Aborigine, it becomes clear that modern man hasn’t developed socially much at all.
Our early ancestors may not have been thinking about white wedding dresses and love poems when they held each other close, but they were experiencing the same hormone explosion as we do. As different cultures developed, different traditions and social mores grew around pair bonding. Much of our idea about ‘falling in love’ stems from medieval Europe and its age of courtly love.
So you are correct when you say that when our ancestors had more time on their hands they were able to create ever more elaborate ‘stories’ about the significance of love, but those stories were, and are, just icing on the cake. No matter what era, climate or culture you come from – ‘love’ has been, and remains to be, the drug most people do, or want to, indulge in.
When I speak of women, I’m not thinking in terms of females; instead I’m referring to a type of mind. This means that both males and females can potentially fit into the term ‘women’. When I speak of men, I am again referring to a type of mind, and not a particular sex.I agree with that, but some women must have potential, although less than men, to become human. You, a woman (a female-being who has ovaries and a uterus), have demonstrated this potential by questioning your existence and purpose. You seem to have detached yourself to a certain extent from the influence of hormones and emotion.Sue: Women, on the other hand, are born fully formed into their lives. So, unlike men, they never have to question anything about their lives. This means that the opportunity never arises for them to change. Without the ability to change, women were never, and can never become human.
You are correct that most females are women, but there are an ever growing number of males racing to join her ranks.
I’m female, but I’m lucky not to have too much woman in me. I’m also lucky to have a plodding nature and a strong love of Truth. Both have allowed me to cross many barriers caused by my emotional attachments, and to keep on going onwards at a steady pace.
It’s comical, but true. I know some old blokes that consider their years spent as soldiers in WWII as the best time they ever had. Seemly, having bullets whizzing past your head, bombs dropping down all around you, eating crap food, living in muddy fox holes, and constantly being in the company of men - can be considered, ‘the best time of one’s life’. It says a lot about the rest of their life spent working at a job to keep the wife and kids happy.I actually used that quote in relation to a man who has become conscious of their meaningless lives after it's too late. Like an old empty man who tells a young man about how he wishes he had done more with his life than the chase women, money, and other wordly attachments. No doubt a man who never becomes conscious of this will probably just assume he never found the right woman!
-
Sue
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Well, why do you think the desire and capacity for self-gratification survived? Why didn't that trait die off millennia ago if it was so useless?Nick wrote:Certainly two parents are better than one when raising a child, no doubt about that. But the actual celebration of marriage, romantic gestures, and things of that nature are superfluous. There is no need for them in order for our species survival, it is simply and solely for the purpose of self-gratification. Like I said earlier, the only reason these things can at times be beneficial is because society has been designed to support and benefit from these things. This is only because our society is one that is built for self gratification.Matt Gregory wrote:Nick wrote: I think it makes sense that the trait of higher intelligence would come with the price of having a little higher maintenance, so it's possible that things like marriage ceremonies could in fact have been necessary for our survival.
Sure, it's selfish, but that doesn't mean it is or was always destructive to the species. The evidence that we're here right now shows that it wasn't.If two parents wanted to raise a child together until they were able to live on their own, that makes perfect sense for the species survival. Although this is not the sole reason a man and woman get married. People try to make it last, and do it in the name of God or something of that nature. They end up doing things they normally wouldn't do just to be able to lay claim to their significant other. They think they are displaying nobility and responsibility when in fact they are just displaying how selfish they are. Again this whole scenario gives people a reason to live, or as Dhodges put it, "people like a good story".
Matt & Sue,
Everything people do is selfish, whether it be directly or indirectly, and I agree it has been a very successful method in our species survival. I'm just speaking more along the lines of the bare essentials required to continue the species. The way I see love, as most people describe it, is something that is quite the anomoly in nature. It's ridiculous how something so primal is overblown with all its bells and whistles. It must be a result of higher intelligence, as Matt said, but what a poor use of it. No?
Everything people do is selfish, whether it be directly or indirectly, and I agree it has been a very successful method in our species survival. I'm just speaking more along the lines of the bare essentials required to continue the species. The way I see love, as most people describe it, is something that is quite the anomoly in nature. It's ridiculous how something so primal is overblown with all its bells and whistles. It must be a result of higher intelligence, as Matt said, but what a poor use of it. No?
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Yeah, I don't totally disagree with you. I guess my point is that although it's tempting to think that Truth improves the survivability of the species, it can't really be justified without evidence. If we were like robots who always immediately and unquestioningly took the wisest course of action then I think that Truth would lead to better survivability. But with all our weaknesses and flaws I don't think we can really know that until we see how it pans out.
Another thing is, does it even make sense to try and justify Truth like that? Is valuing survival of the species more justified than valuing Truth? Ignorant people don't seem value it, so why should wise people? Is it even realistic to think that we are able to value it and would it actually help its survivability if we did? Didn't evolution already program it into us the way it programmed our brains to keep our hearts beating?
Another thing is, does it even make sense to try and justify Truth like that? Is valuing survival of the species more justified than valuing Truth? Ignorant people don't seem value it, so why should wise people? Is it even realistic to think that we are able to value it and would it actually help its survivability if we did? Didn't evolution already program it into us the way it programmed our brains to keep our hearts beating?
Hi Matt, you wrote:
I think a wise man would value the survival of mankind in light of the survival of wisdom. Wise men don't have a choice but to value Truth, lest they become something other than 'wise men.' Survival, however, is about action, not mere words. So too, is Truth and wisdom. Wisdom, at its root, is the survival of the species. For only in the light of Truth can one survive to any extent. Ignorant people only flourish by the light of the sun that is Truth. From perception to action, Truth lights the way.
To survive is to exist, to exist is to appear, to appear is to be percieved, to percieve wisely is to survive.
All valuations revolve about selfish desires. As humans are relatively weak, so we have compensated by banding together. This is where we separate from animals, we are no school of fish. We are no herd of cows nor pod of whales. We can choose wisely, which is a subset of wisdom itself. In order to choose at all, requires some element of reason coupled with values. We choose not only something over another, like a chimp, but we choose values.
A chimp chooses a stick to fish out termites because he is hungry. We choose to abstain from satiation in order to read a book, or converse about wisdom. A chimp is driven, we drive. Just as a woman's nature is willingness, and man's nature is to will, so the nature of the lower order of creatures is willingness. Wisdom is the act of valuing, and acting on those values. Value is willed. Value is masculine. The ignorant to which you refer are the misinformed and/or the feminine.
Bryan
I think the evidence lies all about us, echoing throughout the history of mankind. As evidenced by civilization, the spine of which is wrought from the lives and teachings of wise men. Certianly, the words of these sages (ie. Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, and to a lesser extent men such as Confuscious) have underpinned the very advance of mankind.I guess my point is that although it's tempting to think that Truth improves the survivability of the species, it can't really be justified without evidence.
Another thing is, does it even make sense to try and justify Truth like that? Is valuing survival of the species more justified than valuing Truth? Ignorant people don't seem value it, so why should wise people?
I think a wise man would value the survival of mankind in light of the survival of wisdom. Wise men don't have a choice but to value Truth, lest they become something other than 'wise men.' Survival, however, is about action, not mere words. So too, is Truth and wisdom. Wisdom, at its root, is the survival of the species. For only in the light of Truth can one survive to any extent. Ignorant people only flourish by the light of the sun that is Truth. From perception to action, Truth lights the way.
To survive is to exist, to exist is to appear, to appear is to be percieved, to percieve wisely is to survive.
Is it even realistic to think that we are able to value it and would it actually help its survivability if we did? Didn't evolution already program it into us the way it programmed our brains to keep our hearts beating?
All valuations revolve about selfish desires. As humans are relatively weak, so we have compensated by banding together. This is where we separate from animals, we are no school of fish. We are no herd of cows nor pod of whales. We can choose wisely, which is a subset of wisdom itself. In order to choose at all, requires some element of reason coupled with values. We choose not only something over another, like a chimp, but we choose values.
A chimp chooses a stick to fish out termites because he is hungry. We choose to abstain from satiation in order to read a book, or converse about wisdom. A chimp is driven, we drive. Just as a woman's nature is willingness, and man's nature is to will, so the nature of the lower order of creatures is willingness. Wisdom is the act of valuing, and acting on those values. Value is willed. Value is masculine. The ignorant to which you refer are the misinformed and/or the feminine.
Bryan
Well I was never arguing whether or not Truth would be better for our species survival, rather than be slaves to our emotions and hormones. I was just pointing out what poor use people make of their higher intelligence amongst the other species on this planet. Animals do what they do and that's that, but when people do the same thing, it's superior and divine. People are in denial, they don't want to recognize that their desires and passions are essentially the same as a cows. It makes their life more meaningful.Matt Gregory wrote: Yeah, I don't totally disagree with you. I guess my point is that although it's tempting to think that Truth improves the survivability of the species, it can't really be justified without evidence. If we were like robots who always immediately and unquestioningly took the wisest course of action then I think that Truth would lead to better survivability. But with all our weaknesses and flaws I don't think we can really know that until we see how it pans out.
Although valuing Truth would eliminate many forms of suffering, it's really of no concern to me whether or not it actually leads to our survival. The man I am today can do nothing but value Truth above all. I've come to know it, and now it is my guide and determiner. To value anything other than Truth now would be like turning back into the unconscious animal I was in my past lives. I look back on those lives and comparing them to myself now it's as if I wasn't alive, not something I would or can go back to. I value Truth simply because it's Truth, to value anything else is comparable to valuing feces. I didn't expect it but Truth has given me eternal life.Matt Gregory wrote:Another thing is, does it even make sense to try and justify Truth like that? Is valuing survival of the species more justified than valuing Truth? Ignorant people don't seem value it, so why should wise people? Is it even realistic to think that we are able to value it and would it actually help its survivability if we did? Didn't evolution already program it into us the way it programmed our brains to keep our hearts beating?
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Hey Bryan, good to see you.
Well, the way I see it, all humans have needed to do to survive so far is have sex and (arguably) develop technology. Wisdom isn't necessary for either of these things, so what role do you think it played in the advance of mankind? Jesus was wise, yet all his teachings are ignored by everybody and they have even fought whole wars in his name, so I can't imagine what role wisdom could have possibly played when hardly anyone has ever payed any attention to it.BJMcGilly wrote:Hi Matt, you wrote:I think the evidence lies all about us, echoing throughout the history of mankind. As evidenced by civilization, the spine of which is wrought from the lives and teachings of wise men. Certianly, the words of these sages (ie. Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, and to a lesser extent men such as Confuscious) have underpinned the very advance of mankind.I guess my point is that although it's tempting to think that Truth improves the survivability of the species, it can't really be justified without evidence.
Everyone must be wise already then, because we've all survived. I don't see much point in studying it if everyone already has it and acts on it.Another thing is, does it even make sense to try and justify Truth like that? Is valuing survival of the species more justified than valuing Truth? Ignorant people don't seem value it, so why should wise people?
I think a wise man would value the survival of mankind in light of the survival of wisdom. Wise men don't have a choice but to value Truth, lest they become something other than 'wise men.' Survival, however, is about action, not mere words. So too, is Truth and wisdom. Wisdom, at its root, is the survival of the species. For only in the light of Truth can one survive to any extent. Ignorant people only flourish by the light of the sun that is Truth. From perception to action, Truth lights the way.
To survive is to exist, to exist is to appear, to appear is to be percieved, to percieve wisely is to survive.
Well, I think you're defining "wisdom" a lot more broadly than I normally would. Valuing is a product of consciousness, so all creatures with any sort of consciousness at all value something. I don't see anything especially wise about it if wisdom is consciousness of Ultimate Reality.Is it even realistic to think that we are able to value it and would it actually help its survivability if we did? Didn't evolution already program it into us the way it programmed our brains to keep our hearts beating?
All valuations revolve about selfish desires. As humans are relatively weak, so we have compensated by banding together. This is where we separate from animals, we are no school of fish. We are no herd of cows nor pod of whales. We can choose wisely, which is a subset of wisdom itself. In order to choose at all, requires some element of reason coupled with values. We choose not only something over another, like a chimp, but we choose values.
A chimp chooses a stick to fish out termites because he is hungry. We choose to abstain from satiation in order to read a book, or converse about wisdom. A chimp is driven, we drive. Just as a woman's nature is willingness, and man's nature is to will, so the nature of the lower order of creatures is willingness. Wisdom is the act of valuing, and acting on those values. Value is willed. Value is masculine. The ignorant to which you refer are the misinformed and/or the feminine.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Well, alright, but if these pointless activities helped us to survive somehow then I don't think it makes sense to say it's poor use of our intelligence.Nick wrote:Well I was never arguing whether or not Truth would be better for our species survival, rather than be slaves to our emotions and hormones. I was just pointing out what poor use people make of their higher intelligence amongst the other species on this planet. Animals do what they do and that's that, but when people do the same thing, it's superior and divine. People are in denial, they don't want to recognize that their desires and passions are essentially the same as a cows. It makes their life more meaningful.Matt Gregory wrote: Yeah, I don't totally disagree with you. I guess my point is that although it's tempting to think that Truth improves the survivability of the species, it can't really be justified without evidence. If we were like robots who always immediately and unquestioningly took the wisest course of action then I think that Truth would lead to better survivability. But with all our weaknesses and flaws I don't think we can really know that until we see how it pans out.
I never said they were pointless, I said they were primitive. And again, I'm not saying that they weren't neccessary for our survival. What I am saying is that as a whole our species utilizes are very small amount of our potential. Arguably all humans have done is live like any other mammal, but on a much grander scale. We have made a spectical of what is to be animal. We haven't applied much of what actually gives us the ability to actually become human, such as our higher intelligence which can result in consciousness. Realizing these potentials allows us to develop characterisitics which create a true distinction between us and the animal kingdom. This is what I meant when I said people make poor use of their intelligence. Although it might be stated incorrectly, because after all animals will be animals.Matt Gregory wrote: Well, alright, but if these pointless activities helped us to survive somehow then I don't think it makes sense to say it's poor use of our intelligence.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Like Dave was saying about people liking stories, I think this is related to the high value we put on entertainment overall. Why are we willing to spend so much money on entertainment, and yet for necessities we don't want to pay anything? That seems backwards to me, but maybe entertainment is more important than food in the grand scheme of things. Maybe we would rather die than be bored.
Matt Gregory wrote:
To merely survive, one leads a life none improved over animals. Humping and tinkering away life is not living in my estimation.
I think the disparity to be a matter of perspective. There is the danger, in my broadstroke, of alienating those tightly focused on the narrowband- and simultaneously becoming fodder for those of a more airy persuasion. Consciousness is a matter of degrees just as much as it is an either/or. Or maybe not, what do you think?
Bryan McGilly
Wisdom is the fruit of a rational existence. It sheds light on eternal life, on the possibilities of what may come. The causal web of things, which nothing is beyond, resonates most powerfully in accord with wise actions. The waves of war may swell at the slight breeze of wisdom blowing thousands of miles away, but so too are the treasures of the deeps washed ashore by the same.Well, the way I see it, all humans have needed to do to survive so far is have sex and (arguably) develop technology. Wisdom isn't necessary for either of these things, so what role do you think it played in the advance of mankind? Jesus was wise, yet all his teachings are ignored by everybody and they have even fought whole wars in his name, so I can't imagine what role wisdom could have possibly played when hardly anyone has ever payed any attention to it.
To merely survive, one leads a life none improved over animals. Humping and tinkering away life is not living in my estimation.
I worded the above with less-than-perfect acuity. I think there is a measure of wisdom with which all sentient beings are accorded from birth. An hold-over from the One - a spark of Brahman, of reason by which we may or may not light the way.BM:To survive is to exist, to exist is to appear, to appear is to be percieved, to percieve wisely is to survive.
MG: Everyone must be wise already then, because we've all survived. I don't see much point in studying it if everyone already has it and acts on it.
MG: Well, I think you're defining "wisdom" a lot more broadly than I normally would. Valuing is a product of consciousness, so all creatures with any sort of consciousness at all value something. I don't see anything especially wise about it if wisdom is consciousness of Ultimate Reality.
I think the disparity to be a matter of perspective. There is the danger, in my broadstroke, of alienating those tightly focused on the narrowband- and simultaneously becoming fodder for those of a more airy persuasion. Consciousness is a matter of degrees just as much as it is an either/or. Or maybe not, what do you think?
Bryan McGilly