Are "women" a different species?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Are "women" a different species?

Postby Tamina » Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:55 pm

I'm noticing a trend throughout these forums and call for a defense or clarification of the apparant position. That is, the sweeping generalisations of the sexual state of women. I'm assuming from content that the vast majority of users on these forums are men, and I'm curious on how you justify your stance on women. I'd like to hear from as wide a variety of opinions as possible. The fact that the forum rules call for "men of both gender" frankly makes me a little leery, but if I can't find supported arguments for the reduction of one half of the species to sub-par importance and intellect here, then where can I?
Tamina
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby BMcGilly07 » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:06 am

Tamina wrote:I'm noticing a trend throughout these forums and call for a defense or clarification of the apparant position. That is, the sweeping generalisations of the sexual state of women.


It's not the sexual state or genitalia of any being that is of importance to the purpose of this forum, but rather each individual's capacity for and pursuit of wisdom, truth, enlightenment (a perfect intellectual understanding of reality). Further, through observation one may notice that the character traits and values most useful in this pursuit (single-minded thought, courage, resolution, solitary existence, valuing truth...etc) are born of and most directly related to masculinity. Other traits which are not useful in this pursuit (immediacy, spontaneous free-flowing attitude...etc) are related to femininity. While it is the case that each of these sets of character traits are undoubtedly exhibited strongest in general by each sex; each individual human being has components to his psychology, that is to his mind, which are both masculine and feminine.

I'm assuming from content that the vast majority of users on these forums are men, and I'm curious on how you justify your stance on women. I'd like to hear from as wide a variety of opinions as possible. The fact that the forum rules call for "men of both gender" frankly makes me a little leery, but if I can't find supported arguments for the reduction of one half of the species to sub-par importance and intellect here, then where can I?


You can't find that argument because you're looking for something that isn't there. While it is true that most women exhibit feminine character traits and psychology strongest, it is also the case that most men exhibit masculine psychology and character traits the strongest. However, across the board in all of humanity's history only very few individuals cared to pursue truth and enlightenment. Not just the majority, but all of those of any historical/philosophical impact who took upon themselves this solitary path have been men. Millions of times that number of men have pursued mediocre existences, and so too have women.

While the odds of someone pursuing truth, be they genetically male or female, is incredibly small, there is proof of women being capable of possessing a masculine spirit here on this board (eg, Sue Hindmarsh and Kelly Jones). I think it is the case that men have a greater predisposition for Genius, and that makes their spiraled descent into femininity all the more of a tragedy, just as a woman overcoming her disposition to arrive at enlightenment would be all the more spectacular, although I daresay no one would recognize her, instead considering her a 'traitor to the cause of women'.

P.S. The Crucible is for one-on-one arguments and commentary thereon, save any posts such as this for the main Genius Forum.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Tamina » Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:06 pm

Forgive me, I'm pretty new here. I'd like to discuss this with you, if I may.

Your argument rest on observational evidence that certain qualities that advance the pursuit of enlightenment are masculine, whilst others are female. I notice also that you posulate that an individual may posses qualities of both genders. If this is so, why divide them into masculine and femenine? What purpose besides enforcing stereotypes does this serve?

Why is isolation a masculine trait? Besides which, surely greater understanding of the human state would come from an involvement with humanity?

Isn't a free-flowing attitude an essential evolutionary trait for adapting swiftly to new environments and information? How is this inimicible to enlightenment?

But the most important question by far: What observational evidence? Who was observing, what, when, why and how? Unless you can substantiate this then I'm afraid I can't see your point.
Tamina
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:54 pm

Hi Tamina,

I figured Bryan wouldn't mind if I take up the 'debate'.


Tamina wrote:Are "women" a different species?

They are if you define them to be. Species are just adventitious designations.


I'm noticing a trend throughout these forums and call for a defense or clarification of the apparant position. That is, the sweeping generalisations of the sexual state of women.

I personally define "women" to mean persons with feminine psychology. That type of psychology is a "sexual state", if you really wish to put it like that.


I'm assuming from content that the vast majority of users on these forums are men,

Biological males are indeed more numerous than biological females on the Genius Forum, but I think what you're really seeing is a preponderance of masculine psychology - ie. quality of thinking. Biological sex is not so important here.


and I'm curious on how you justify your stance on women. I'd like to hear from as wide a variety of opinions as possible.

If you hang around, you'll find a wide variety of observations from a wide variety of personalities here, in regards how biological males usually demonstrate greater capacity for reason and depth of thought (what we mean by masculinity) than biological females. These observations are drawn from personal experience, as well as from secondary sources (news articles, non-fictional and fictional literature, movies, songs, etc.).

We justify our stances using empirical evidence, which is the only way it can be justified.


The fact that the forum rules call for "men of both gender" frankly makes me a little leery,

To be precise:

"Genius is a discussion forum that is passionately dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values. It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men - of either sex."

It doesn't say men of either gender, because "men" is one gender, and "women" is the other (two for convenience).


but if I can't find supported arguments for the reduction of one half of the species to sub-par importance and intellect here, then where can I?

If I understand it rightly, a par is the required number of shots to hit a golf ball into the goal, in order to be considered a "good shot". It's fine to say that a above-par shot is a bad shot, according to the rules of the game. It's not making poor golfers feel bad, it's just encouraging them to do better.

That's what we are doing by setting standards of intellect, and noting that there are differences in how individuals measure up. And those differences are often clearly evident straight down a sexual line.


KJ
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:13 pm

Tamina wrote:surely greater understanding of the human state would come from an involvement with humanity?

Probably what Bryan means by isolation is the ability to become an individual, and to think for oneself.

This isolation, or entrance into solitude, means closing oneself off from the conventional world, in order to enter the realm of logical thinking. It means abandoning social ties and herdly behaviour, so that one's reasoning isn't distorted by the egotistical need to belong within a safe and friendly group. It means getting to know one's own mind, on a deep and intimate level. It also means direct acquaintance with the psychology of the ego. This thinking-oriented life is absolutely necessary to attain greater understanding of "the human state".


Isn't a free-flowing attitude an essential evolutionary trait for adapting swiftly to new environments and information? How is this inimicible to enlightenment?

Not speaking for Bryan, of course, adaptation is an essential survival trait. Successful adaptation is reason-based. It requires the ability to make rational plans, observe carefully what is happening, and to make good guesses about how to execute one's plans according to the situation.

What Bryan probably means by a free-flowing attitude is the flowie, spontaneous, carefree and emotion-craving attitude that has roughly no capacity for reasoning.


KJ
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:27 pm

Tamina,

When you've got some time to spare, you might like to peruse this essay.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:47 pm

dejavu wrote:Spontanaeity, immediacy, these belong to genius.

Kierkegaard says that enlightenment is "Spontaneity, or immediacy, after reflection".

The significant thing is that it comes after reflection. The alternative is spontaneity or immediacy before reflection, which is what animals have.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:25 pm

Always wise to hear the definitions, to sit with them, to try them on even, to walk with them, and to see how they make you feel.

A group of ideas, proposals, explanations has been offered. The presenters have been asked to appear, with their diagrams, charts, case histories, their selling points. It is true what Kelly says: everything seems to hinge on and out of an underlying psychology.

How can we go about examining the psychology of those who formulate these definitions? How can we open that book? How can we peek behind the mind to the dreams? To the soul if you will?

These GF waters...are waters with various currents in them. In one's psychology too there are shallows, rapids, calm bays, and deep, dangerous areas where strong currents pull at the surface. If you like your 'thoughts bloody' and manlike, also consider the possibility of various strains of mental disorder. And note---like a 'circumspect psychologist' of the Chinese proverbial fox walking over a frozen lake---how the ideas we entertain and allow to grip us, can heal and help us, and also drive us crazy.

Some of the philosophers emulated here may indeed have been geniuses, they may have contributed inestimably to the world of ideas, to possibilities in thinking, but too one always has to consider the possibility of madness, which for modern, Western man, always lurks so close. Psychological volcanoes can threaten to blow their top, and we only need to glance at Weininger's and Nietzsche's context to understand some of that.

Beware of anyone who tells you to negate the female, or women, or what is feminine per se. Yet, there is some sense in these tirades against the female (as there is sense in portions of Kelly's essay). Note: it is all in the sifting.

A healthy body, a healthy mind, an intellectual system that is lubricated, well ventilated, cool, productive. To what degree are these things essential for a well-developed person? What happens when some elements are neglected, misunderstood, denied?

"A perfect intellectual understanding of reality".

Red flags go up for me when I hear such statements. Is such a thing possible or desirable?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:54 pm

Alex wrote:Beware of anyone who tells you to negate the female, or women, or what is feminine per se. Yet, there is some sense in these tirades against the female (as there is sense in portions of Kelly's essay).

The essential skill in Sacred Cow demolition is what good comedians are made or broken on. That is, colourful, wild, iconoclastic, vehement ravaging of a God. If the audience is mortified and offended, then the comedian has won. More comedians and comics will come along, laughing at the shudders and dismay.

Did you not once happen to be a Seducer, Alex? One who knew how to lead the cow about by the nose-ring?


A healthy body, a healthy mind, an intellectual system that is lubricated, well ventilated, cool, productive. To what degree are these things essential for a well-developed person? What happens when some elements are neglected, misunderstood, denied?

Do you mean, is it possible to live without the ego? Yes, it is possible given the right conditions. But something as demanding as this does not happen overnight. It takes extraordinary courage, mental strength, high-reaching ambition, a subtle imagination, and a deep faith in reason.


"A perfect intellectual understanding of reality". Red flags go up for me when I hear such statements. Is such a thing possible or desirable?

If you can imagine it, and desire it strongly enough, the Infinite supports you. It's cause and effect applied to a high-achiever. All the negative and contrarian view-points that suffocate the mediocre, provide jutting ledges for the lofty-minded genius to clamber up. What he loves most, he becomes.


KJ
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby David Quinn » Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:13 pm

Alex Jacob wrote:Always wise to hear the definitions, to sit with them, to try them on even, to walk with them, and to see how they make you feel.

A group of ideas, proposals, explanations has been offered. The presenters have been asked to appear, with their diagrams, charts, case histories, their selling points. It is true what Kelly says: everything seems to hinge on and out of an underlying psychology.

How can we go about examining the psychology of those who formulate these definitions? How can we open that book? How can we peek behind the mind to the dreams? To the soul if you will?

These GF waters...are waters with various currents in them. In one's psychology too there are shallows, rapids, calm bays, and deep, dangerous areas where strong currents pull at the surface. If you like your 'thoughts bloody' and manlike, also consider the possibility of various strains of mental disorder. And note---like a 'circumspect psychologist' of the Chinese proverbial fox walking over a frozen lake---how the ideas we entertain and allow to grip us, can heal and help us, and also drive us crazy.

Some of the philosophers emulated here may indeed have been geniuses, they may have contributed inestimably to the world of ideas, to possibilities in thinking, but too one always has to consider the possibility of madness, which for modern, Western man, always lurks so close. Psychological volcanoes can threaten to blow their top, and we only need to glance at Weininger's and Nietzsche's context to understand some of that.

Getting involved with truth is a risky business. Lots of people get burned by it; many become insane and have their lives ruined by it. It's a question of whether enlightenment is worth the risk or whether it is better to stay within the safety of the fog.

Needles to say, there is also an underlying psychology to wanting to stay in the fog.


Beware of anyone who tells you to negate the female, or women, or what is feminine per se.

Beware of anyone who negates knowledge of truth and life beyond the fog. An infinitely more serious act.


"A perfect intellectual understanding of reality".

Red flags go up for me when I hear such statements. Is such a thing possible or desirable?

There is only one way to find out.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Jason » Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:38 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote:"A perfect intellectual understanding of reality".

Red flags go up for me when I hear such statements. Is such a thing possible or desirable?

There is only one way to find out.


Simulate the scenario with a supercomputer?
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kevin Solway » Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:55 am

This rant about women by Adam Carolla had me in stitches - especially the very last bit.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Alex Jacob » Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:22 am

David wrote:

"Beware of anyone who negates knowledge of truth and life beyond the fog. An infinitely more serious act."

I guess I just see it differently. We have bodies, we exist on the Earth, we have a greater or lesser involvement in language (upon which everything hinges), and soon we will physically go out of existence. It is just a brief span of time that we will be here, it makes good sense to define one's ethic of life. One has to get clear about this as soon as one can, and yet sometimes this is not completely in one's power. That mysterious thing we call 'Fate' often has a greater hand in this than we might think. The meaning of that? Sometimes our very sure ideas about things change. What was true at one time, is revised later. If there is a constant in human life, as I have seen it, it is this.

Okay, so you obviously wish to operate within a binary simplicity: there is the fog where one wanders blindly, and then there is the clarity, where everything is illumined. But it is not that simple, David! If this 'enlightenment' were one thing, every enlightened person would say and do the same thing. But there are infinite varieties of (so-called) enlightened beings. They all remain with a body, eating and sleeping and needing certain things, so 'enlightenment' can only be a state of mind. But whatever it is, one still has to live, eat, earn, struggle, decide, choose. To be enlightened does not remove one from any of that. This is just so amazingly simple that it surprises me you do not recognize the problematic in your use of the word, and that you juxtapose it to 'the fog'.

I rather say that we may be able to achieve or cultivate enlightened attitudes, that we might live in an enlightened way, or even that we may think enlightenedly or feel enlightendly, but 'enlightenment' cannot be just one state. To me the term is worthless---certainly for rational discourse.

The way I see it, no matter what happens, we define life by the fact that we are presently alive, in a body, but always with the fore-knowledge of impending death. Limitation is the key-word. It is true that one can live in stupor, or avoidance, or pleasure-seeking, or really any activity one could name, and still one ends up at the same place, a sort of no-place, a termination. The question is, What is one going to do? what is one going to think? what is one going to feel? In relation to those questions one could speak about 'enlightenment', but you'd have to have a subject to refer to, such as the 'enlightenment' of such-and-such person in thus-and-such culture and moment in history. If they had influence, it was always and only on ethics. Can you name an alternative?

You say that I am in a 'fog', but truthfully what I am saying is somewhat more clear than what you are saying. Less abstract, more down-to-earth, more rational, more sensible.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Alex Jacob » Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:34 am

Kelly, I am clearly a 'personalist'. You flee in horror from the mere notion. In the mental fortress you have constructed---a grand edifice---you have ruled out the possibility of a 'God' that is 'personal'. It is a logical impossibility for you, but so much is determined by the limited structure of your thinking. And at the same time your grasp of the latitude of movement within language is so limited, and this lack of grasp of language (in the widest sense possible) has you, if you'll permit me, tied up in such a way that you can only move in certain ways. I suppose you call this 'egolessness' and 'truth'.

Language is a peculiar thing, I don't at all pretend to have it figured out, I actually feel it is the core magical ingredient of human life. I can assemble language to support an atheistic viewpoint, and the pieces could be made to fit together. It would amount to a 'cow', a beast, that one could parade around by the nose. Similarly, I could do the same with a notion of God that is personal. That is to say, the perception of a personality that appears on the screen of awareness, that pokes through the mist of perception. In one moment 'it' is abstract, in another moment it is completely personal.

This struggle between personalists and impersonalists is very ancient.

It hinges upon language, not on 'truth'.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:58 am

Alex wrote:you have ruled out the possibility of a 'God' that is 'personal'. It is a logical impossibility for you, but so much is determined by the limited structure of your thinking. Language is a peculiar thing

Yes, I agree that words and concepts can mean what we wish them to. That's a good realisation. However, once a human brain gives to a concept a meaning, that is the meaning it has at that moment. That kind of limitation is inevitable for consciousness.

A=A applies infinitely to every concept, no matter what its meaning is. That is at once the most unlimited structure of thinking, and the most limited, because there is no room for movement.

The meaning for God I'm using at this moment, in my essay, and in an almost identical discussion on the Philosoph-e Cafe, is what we were discussing earlier (see Videos and criticisms):

Kelly: You wouldn't refute either the modern scientist's theistic notion of a Fine-tuner of all Universes or the deistic notion of a First Cause of Everything?"

Alex: Probably the idea of a 'first cause' is an integral and unavoidable component of thought, as in thinking system.

What is called 'modern science's notion of a fine-tuner', as you seem to imply, is an echo, perhaps, of a deep-seated sense of a creator. Since no matter how I might try to avoid the idea myself---independently of my own self---it always finds a way to assert itself in my consciousness. In that, I am hopelessly deist! and lost!


What you had expressed earlier demonstrated a different kind of limitation, namely, a desire to deny A=A whilst confirming it.


KJ
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Carl G » Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:01 am

Kevin Solway wrote:This rant about women by Adam Carolla had me in stitches - especially the very last bit.

You're right, it was kind of funny, an utter lowlife making a complete ass of himself.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:36 am

Here are a few other Adam Carolla's videos that are quite humorous, and yes, he's a bit emotional, but some of his arguments are bang on.

On Atheism - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=aQMQxJKKj ... re=related
On Germany - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tcmuGj4vM ... re=related
On Conspiracy Theories - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AoSirr4bf ... re=related
On Economics - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=TAiokk1P3 ... re=related
On the Superiority of Men - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0_zA5Tcfp ... re=related
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Carl G » Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:12 pm

some of his arguments are bang on.

Which ones? All of what I heard was horse's-ass-unlistenable.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby sue hindmarsh » Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:49 pm

Kevin wrote:
This rant about women by Adam Carolla had me in stitches - especially the very last bit.

Even if she'd studied WWII in school, it wouldn't have impressed her as anything significant to her life. Young women (and women in general) only know what impacts them emotionally, which is why women's mags are full of stuff about beauty, fashion, men, homemaking, pets, and other fluff.

The young woman Carolla was speaking with isn't at all unique. So many people haven't a clue about the world past their own emotional needs and wants. I saw a TV show where 15-30 years olds were being asked very simple questions about capital cities of major countries: the capital of France, the capital of England, the capital of Italy. Most of this age group didn't have a clue, but of the one's that did, males vastly outnumbered the females. When my 26 year old daughter dropped by, I told her about the show, and I wasn't at all surprised that she couldn't answer those questions. (She thought that the capital of England was "England"). Interestingly, my 16 year old son could answer them all correctly, but not because he paid more attention in history lessons than she did, but because war and warriors have been a major part of his life since he was very young. Toy soldiers, Lego castles, designing fighter planes on paper, designing strategies and armour for his Warhammer warriors, and WWI/WWII themed computer games - as well as watching old war movies and the Band of Brothers television series.

His greater understanding of the world is completely in line with his need to etch a place for himself in it. My daughter's lack of understanding displays that her survival isn't dependent on understanding the world at all.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby David Quinn » Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:17 pm

Alex Jacob wrote: Okay, so you obviously wish to operate within a binary simplicity: there is the fog where one wanders blindly, and then there is the clarity, where everything is illumined. But it is not that simple, David! If this 'enlightenment' were one thing, every enlightened person would say and do the same thing. But there are infinite varieties of (so-called) enlightened beings. They all remain with a body, eating and sleeping and needing certain things, so 'enlightenment' can only be a state of mind. But whatever it is, one still has to live, eat, earn, struggle, decide, choose. To be enlightened does not remove one from any of that. This is just so amazingly simple that it surprises me you do not recognize the problematic in your use of the word, and that you juxtapose it to 'the fog'.

No, it applies to those who want to keep fuzzying things up as a matter of course.

Binary simplicity, as you call it, has its uses in certain circumstances, just as ambiguity and relativistic modes of thinking have their place as well. The key to being intelligent is knowing when each one is appropriate in the circumstances.

For example, if I need a map to guide me to a particular place, then I need one that has clear, unambigiuous, black-and-white, accurate instructions. I have no use for a fuzzy map that points vaguely in all directions.

A person who wants everything to be fuzzy all the time is indicating something about his own psychology. He is effectly indicating that he doesn't want to do anything, or achieve anything, or go anywhere at all. All spiritual ambition is fuzzed out from the outset.


I rather say that we may be able to achieve or cultivate enlightened attitudes, that we might live in an enlightened way, or even that we may think enlightenedly or feel enlightendly, but 'enlightenment' cannot be just one state. To me the term is worthless---certainly for rational discourse.

True enough, enlightenment isn't one state. In fact, it isn't a state at all. It is simply a label given to the endlessly flowing, ever-changing mentality that is devoid of delusion.

Enlightened consciousness is no more static than, say, adult consciousness is. The only difference is that the former doesn't include deluded perceptions and thought-processes within its flowing mix.


If this 'enlightenment' were one thing, every enlightened person would say and do the same thing. But there are infinite varieties of (so-called) enlightened beings.

Enlightened people are always pointing to the same reality, so in that sense they always do the same thing, even though they might use different approaches, words and concepts in the process.

Nietzsche consistently pointed to the nature of God, while Jesus consistently pointed to the glories of atheistic Nature, and yet both in their own way were pointing to the same thing.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kevin Solway » Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:55 pm

David wrote:If I need a map to guide me to a particular place, then I need one that has clear, unambigiuous, black-and-white, accurate instructions. I have no use for a fuzzy map that points vaguely in all directions.

Yesterday I received an email invitation from an academic to participate in a survey about attitudes towards women.

They wanted to know what I considered the value of women to be "generally, in all situations" (sic).

I replied "What is the value of a mobile phone, generally, in all situations?", and that I wouldn't be participating in their survey, and no intelligent person would, and therefore their results will be biased.

It has been estimated that at least 95% of academic research is completely useless because of serious flaws in the conception and design of the research. This must be one of those.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:35 pm

Shows fuzzy thinking, doesn't it?

A thought on what David wrote.

Nietzsche consistently pointed to the nature of God, while Jesus consistently pointed to the glories of atheistic Nature, and yet both in their own way were pointing to the same thing.

God is the "feminine" void, the primal valley, the creative source from which all emanates, that Lao Tzu pointed to. Nietzsche points to the nature of God with his declarations that there is no truth, no God.

Atheistic Nature is the masculine manifestations ("If you lift a stone, I am there."), the interdependent origination of Buddha and Nagarjuna.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Dave Toast » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:56 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
David wrote:If I need a map to guide me to a particular place, then I need one that has clear, unambigiuous, black-and-white, accurate instructions. I have no use for a fuzzy map that points vaguely in all directions.

Yesterday I received an email invitation from an academic to participate in a survey about attitudes towards women.

They wanted to know what I considered the value of women to be "generally, in all situations" (sic).

I replied "What is the value of a mobile phone, generally, in all situations?", and that I wouldn't be participating in their survey, and no intelligent person would, and therefore their results will be biased.

It has been estimated that at least 95% of academic research is completely useless because of serious flaws in the conception and design of the research. This must be one of those.

And the survey will read:

Are you (a) A male chauvinist? (b) A female chauvinist?

Tick where appropriate if you are sufficiently dexterous. Alternatively, scrawl through the answer you disagree with, using a crayon.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:23 am

The chances of a biological male becoming enlightened are probably about 1 out of a million, whereas the chances of a biological female becoming enlightened are probably 1 out of a billion.

Actually, these estimates are probably pretty generous because of the world population of 6 billion, that would mean that there would be roughly 6000 enlightened men, which seems way too high, and 6 enlightened females, which seems a little too high as well...

it's probably more accurate to suggest that a man's chances are about 1 out of 100 million, and the females chances are about 1 out of two billion, which would bring the figures down to 60 enlightened men, and 3 enlightened females on a global level.

And so, the degree between these probability estimates is the degree to which females are of a different species.

Men just have more genetic luck as it pertains to rational thought. That doesn’t mean that it is absolutely impossible for women to become enlightened, but the odds are worse, as far as probability is concerned.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Jason » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:38 am

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The chances of a biological male becoming enlightened are probably about 1 out of a million, whereas the chances of a biological female becoming enlightened are probably 1 out of a billion.

Actually, these estimates are probably pretty generous because of the world population of 6 billion, that would mean that there would be roughly 6000 enlightened men, which seems way too high, and 6 enlightened females, which seems a little too high as well...

it's probably more accurate to suggest that a man's chances are about 1 out of 100 million, and the females chances are about 1 out of two billion, which would bring the figures down to 60 enlightened men, and 3 enlightened females on a global level.


Your figures are wrong, because there's roughly 3 billion males and 3 billion females, not 6 billion of each.
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Next

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 8 guests

cron