Compartmentalization

[Lollipop_King]

Do you agree?

• YES
• NO
• UNDECIDED

I have often come across the modern mind, in all its obtuse, innocent (ignorant), “well-meaning”, pseudo-altruistic glory.

Its ability to compartmentalize concepts so as to use one rational standard in one area and a different, often contradictory one, in another, can be easily understood even if it can be frustrating.

I have, on many occasions, come across the politically-correct culturally indoctrinated, institutionalized weak mind.

It denies all categorizations based on outer appearances when dealing with human beings but has no problem in utilizing the very practices it denies as generalizations when trying to understand nature or the cosmos.
It talks about concepts in ambiguous ways never delving, or wanting to for fear of what it might see there, any deeper than is necessary to find contentment or belonging.
It can talk about ‘self’ or ‘love’ or ‘selflessness’ or ‘world’ or ‘object’ as if their reality was self-evident, but attack its basic, culturally determined, beliefs and it will rile against you as a bigoted over-generalizing fascist or an infidel destined for hell or a life of misery.

For instance categorizing species using their outer appearances and behaviors is not immoral, for such a mind, whereas doing so with human beings is.
Gender roles in animals are a matter concerning their nature and their procreative strategies, whereas with human beings it is a prejudiced exaggeration or a social construct or a biased generalization.

You see human beings, even for the secular culturally indoctrinated mind, are special; they are free-willed and rational in their actions and behaviors. Reason is presupposed as a defining aspect of all human activity. All human beings are equally endowed with rational power.
The mind is separate from the body. One cannot affect or reflect on the other.

Mankind is mind whereas mankind’s physical appearance is accidental, or a product of nurturing or environmentally determined but with no deeper implications.

The religious mind calls it a soul, the secular mind calls it free-will or, sometimes, reason.
Whether religious or secular the institutionalization is no different.
A religious mind accepts the beliefs of its parent and of its peers in no different a way than a secular mind accepts the science of its time and place or the current moral and social ‘truths’.

In one area color is superficial and insignificant whereas shape, smell, taste, sound is not.
The eyes only perceive the insignificant whereas taste might not.

I mean if a person’s skin color says nothing about them then why does what he sound like, what he says, matter more?

If these simpletons followed through with their reasoning then taste, smell, form should be just as superficial and meaningless as color is or as sex is.

This is a compartmentalization or double-standard reasoning no different than the one exhibited in faith.

The religious mind has no problem in remaining skeptical or in understanding reality using common sense and logic when it comes to the mundane and everyday or when its immediate self-interests are in question (when it suits it), but it then throws all of it out the door when constructing an opinion on the unknown or the divine or the transcending or essence, when its psychological well-being might be threatened.

Here ‘truth’ or ‘reality” and preference, taste and happiness are equated.

It is not surprising then that such minds would seek out the hidden motive the underlying self-interest in any expression of opinion concerning ‘truth’ and ‘reality’.
They reason, mostly subconsciously, that since they believe in what most benefits them or sooths them personally that this is also true for everyone (even if it is so for the majority of mediocre minds).
They then seek for the other’s advantage in believing in what he does.
This is called by them: objectivity.
Reality must come ready made and be automatically beneficial to them.
It isn’t that reality must be perceived as it is and then dealt with or overcome or coped with, but that all hints of the negative must be eradicated to begin with.

In both the culturally indoctrinated and the religiously indoctrinated the mind has submitted, for selfish and emotional reasons, to a common, self-evident dogma - a popular, communal belief.

This acceptance of an absolute certainty forces such minds to display different reasoning methods in different situations.
Their reason is not consistent, but it changes in accordance to what is in question.
The hidden goal is to maintain personal well-being and psychological stability and social viability.

These different reasoning methods often contradict one another and this is dealt with through a kind of denial or forgetfulness or a reliance on the blind belief of the absurd which is called faith.

The examples abound in this very forum.

[Lollipop_King]

I can see that the tone of the thread is keeping many away…no matter.
Honesty isn’t as appealing as some pretend it is.
It seems that the only honesty most find attractive and virtuous is the kind that is “positive” or flattering or unthreatening and reassuring.
No matter.
The amount of bullshit that goes on in supposed ‘civil’ discussions, like these, is astounding.

Side note -
{for all the mathematical types}

What is the number 1?

Is it not a generalization, a hypothetical concept attached to a unity to describe its presumed, but not proven, completeness?
Is it not an ideal, referring to a hypothetical and still unproven absolute?
Is it actual?
Is the number one a specific?
Is it not a human prejudice?

What is a geometrical concept…a line, for example?
Is there such a thing as a line or is it a hypothetical spatial concept connecting two hypothetical points in space/time via a hypothetical shortest route?

Stupidity is much more than funny or innocent or excusable or pitiful…it is dangerous when left alone to propagate and when allowed to believe in its own value or in the equality of all.

Stupidity is insidious and the ease with which one can convince it of what it wants to believe makes it dangerous.
Stupidity infects its surrounding; it takes over using sheer quantity over quality and dominates any discussion with its simplicity.
Stupidity is an example of how weakness combines to overcome strength – it explains nature’s upward evolution into larger and more complicated unities.

[Carleas]

What’s wrong with compartmentalizing? It seems clear that context can affect the way that rationalizing should be done. For instance, in another thread “in this very forum”, you compared the inability to strictly label male/female with the inability to strictly label molecules. This seems an example of a case where using the same rationale is inappropriate. When we say something is a ‘water molecule’, we mean to indicate that that thing has certain well-defined (as much as possible) properties. To say the properties vary is not really true, because statistical variation is a part of the definition of the properties. But even if it weren’t, the variations are slight: an electron here as opposed to there, etc. Functionally, they are the same.
Gender, on the other hand, is quite different. The properties attached to “male” and “female” are not nearly so well defined. For instance, the same terminology was used in the early 19th century, when “female”, as it applied to voting, was enough to deny one voting rights. Granted, the historical definition of a water hasn’t been constant, but it isn’t near the variation seen in gender labels. If you wish to discount historical change, the inconsistencies in the modern definition abound just the same. Aside from a certain genitalia and reproductive role (which we can grant because the variation on that structure is relatively little, though varitations exist), femininity and masculinity are fuzzy in the utmost. Women are considered weaker, more emotional, less rationally able, more intuitive, and men stronger, rational, emotionless. But feminists and soldiers will tell you that women are strong; famous mathemeticians, that they are smart and rational. Men, on the other hand, may have a wide array of emotions, may be as illogical as anyone, and may be mincing and frail. What makes these qualities male or female? Cultural norms, which are questionable. If we take the labels as being effective of the trends, we can consitently maintain that we should not use them, even though many in society may fit the sterotype.
But why, you note, may we question gender in humans and not in animals? For many reasons. Certainly because gender in animals is relegated exclusively (to my knowledge) to physical differences, where as in humans behavioral differences come into play (if I called a male lion “affeminate”, it would most likely be taken anthropomorphically). So clearly, though it seems we are being shifty, applying one standard to humans and another to animals, we are actually just using different words. We may call factions of both species “male” and “female”, and we may call the both of them “genders”, but these words do not have the same meaning in different context, and it is rather to use the same rationale which is the “weak-minded” course of action.
If you think your thought is not compartmentalized, you ignore that it is, and you ignore the consequences of that compartmentalization. You do not notice that there is equivocation when you are seeking to apply the same reasoning everywhere. Language is about compartmentalizing, separating words from noise, letters from squiggles. Without it, we’d harly function. Weak minded? Ignorant? Probably sometimes, but more often it is the denial of the divisions that is evidential of that brand of myopia.

[Lollipop_King]

@Carleas

What’s wrong with compartmentalizing? It seems clear that context can affect the way that rationalizing should be done. For instance, in another thread “in this very forum”, you compared the inability to strictly label male/female with the inability to strictly label molecules. This seems an example of a case where using the same rationale is inappropriate. When we say something is a ‘water molecule’, we mean to indicate that that thing has certain well-defined (as much as possible) properties. To say the properties vary is not really true, because statistical variation is a part of the definition of the properties. But even if it weren’t, the variations are slight: an electron here as opposed to there, etc. Functionally, they are the same.
Gender, on the other hand, is quite different. The properties attached to “male” and “female” are not nearly so well defined. For instance, the same terminology was used in the early 19th century, when “female”, as it applied to voting, was enough to deny one voting rights.

Let me define them for you, then.

Female: a sexual type meant to be fertilized, and carry into maturity the fruit of this fertilization. A procreative type evolved, both physically and mentally, to carry out this genetic (natural) role.

Male: a sexual type meant to fertilize a female. A procreative type evolved, both physically and mentally, to carry out this genetic (natural) role.

The only reason for a female/male distinction in nature is for procreative practices.
Any usage of this sexuality for other, social, psychological purposes can only be the result of a dysfunction, mutation or redirection of this primary function.

Granted, the historical definition of a water hasn’t been constant, but it isn’t near the variation seen in gender labels. If you wish to discount historical change, the inconsistencies in the modern definition abound just the same. Aside from a certain genitalia and reproductive role (which we can grant because the variation on that structure is relatively little, though varitations exist), femininity and masculinity are fuzzy in the utmost.

“Fuzzy” only to those who use it for political self-serving and cultural reasons.

Women are considered weaker, more emotional, less rationally able, more intuitive, and men stronger, rational, emotionless. But feminists and soldiers will tell you that women are strong; famous mathemeticians, that they are smart and rational. Men, on the other hand, may have a wide array of emotions, may be as illogical as anyone, and may be mincing and frail. What makes these qualities male or female? Cultural norms, which are questionable.

Someone should tell lions and chimpanzees and many other species that their physical inequalities and gender differences are the product of social engineering.

I’m still waiting for that woman to become a revolutionary innovator and inventor in any field.

If we take the labels as being effective of the trends, we can consitently maintain that we should not use them, even though many in society may fit the sterotype.

Exceptions to the rule only serve to show that there is a rule.
If I say that there is a unique instance of a white black bear, then I am admitting that the normal black bear is black.

But why, you note, may we question gender in humans and not in animals? For many reasons

I’m sure non of them are culturally determined of social constructed, like gender differences are.

Certainly because gender in animals is relegated exclusively (to my knowledge) to physical differences, where as in humans behavioral differences come into play (if I called a male lion “affeminate”, it would most likely be taken anthropomorphically).

Huh?
See this is the double-standard reasoning, with no reason for doing so, which is typical of a weak mind.

So, you’ve never heard of animals behaving differently because of their gender?
Let’s take our closest relatives the chimpanzees.

Do males behave just like females?
Do hormones produce behaviors?
Does a procreative role, create a disposition and a behavioral pattern?

So clearly, though it seems we are being shifty, applying one standard to humans and another to animals, we are actually just using different words. We may call factions of both species “male” and “female”, and we may call the both of them “genders”, but these words do not have the same meaning in different context, and it is rather to use the same rationale which is the “weak-minded” course of action.

I think what is “shifty” is your reasoning that humans are animals but not “just like animals”.
This insinuated, ambiguous difference is assumed as proof, without definition, of why humans are measured by a different standard.
Then the concept of brain or reason is used.
Humans are defined by their reason, their minds.
Are not animals then?
How is mind exhibited: action.
Is language not an activity? Is not language sensual, rhythmic, information expressed through space and understood because of a common, agreed upon, ambiguous definition of the symbology they project?
In this case reason becomes a controlling, and often distracting redirecting and hypocritical tool.

Words can assert one thing and action another…which is more reliable or more honest?

If appearance is superficial then why is sound less so?
If language is supposed to assert the mind’s motives, as much as these assertions are honest, direct and self-aware, projecting a hidden essence, then why does not form or color?

Color projects a fruits inner essence outward. The way it reverberates in the color spectrum or the way light bounces off of it says something about its quality.
The shape of a creature says something about its essence, about its historical past.

If you think your thought is not compartmentalized, you ignore that it is, and you ignore the consequences of that compartmentalization. You do not notice that there is equivocation when you are seeking to apply the same reasoning everywhere. Language is about compartmentalizing, separating words from noise, letters from squiggles. Without it, we’d harly function.

What?
I was talking about using one standard for judging one phenomena and then contradicting the previous judging by using another, often the reverse, to judge another.
What does this have to do with what you are talking about?
Did you even understand what I was saying?

I’m saying that if nature gave us senses to judge the world around us and to make our way through it, then why are these judgments superficial and erroneous or the products of social engineering in one instance and totally rational and logical and common-sense in another?

Is appearance different from essence?
Forget about how people, minds, conceal or mask or pretend appearance so as to hide their essence.
Here language comes in as a method of concealment or makeup or clothing or civilization.

If rust on metal says something about its past and present quality then why does not color in humans?

I would say that what is a cultural product isn’t gender or sexual roles but how these roles are exhibited or symbolized or allowed to be expressed.
Equality is a product of social engineering not inequality.
Nature functions on inequality on difference.

Weak minded? Ignorant? Probably sometimes, but more often it is the denial of the divisions that is evidential of that brand of myopia.

I think you need a new prescription…your glasses are foggy and you see everything through the lenses of your cultural upbringing.

[Carleas]

I have no problem accepting your definition of male and female. But notice that they don’t say much. They certainly don’t say anything about being “a revolutionary innovator and inventor in any field.” (Marie Curie? Also, take into account that women have only been allowed into fields in the past 50 years, and only taken seriously in the past 20, and the sparsity of female innovators is not shocking.) Where does that inclusion come from? Is it the “physically and mentally” part (because clearly men must be much more innovative and inventive to deliver their genetic material)?
Human behavior is much less instictive and much more learned than other animal’s behaviors. This is one of the main distinguishing properties of human thought from animal thought. We can learn to read and write and speak, to employ complex tools and thought processes, to do incredible things that no other animal can even approach. Is that not enough to warrant special consideration when it comes to how we should think about human behavior? As I said before, the context of use vindicates the different modes of thought. When it comes to thought, behavior, and culture, no, humans are certainly not “just like [other] animals”

I’m a little confused about the judging-thing-by-different-senses bit. Do you mean to ask why we can’t judge people by their looks? If you do, I would simply reply that we can, but that there are limits to how much information we can get from looks.
Let’s take the example of rust. We can look at a rusted piece of metal and see that it is rusted from the color difference. But we cannot look at a black man and see anything about his character or potential because he is black. We can see that he is less prone to sunburn, but the correlation between color and content is too detached when it comes to mental qualities.
Likewise, the shape of a woman’s genitals do not say a terrible lot about her brain, because the brain and the genitals are detached.

What cultural upbringing is reflected in my position? Certainly not the cultural upbringing one recieves in the US.

[Anzha]

I think that judging something or someone by only one parameter at a time is acceptable, provided that the whole is not forgotten. Different things can be learned by different approaches. The problem occurs when only one parameter is attempted and a conclusion is drawn.

But there are times when only one angle IS acceptable, for example :
Visual : I see a wilted vegetable on a plate.
Conclusions : I’m not going to eat said vegetable because it appears to be rotten and I think that eating it will make me sick.

I could go through other approaches - I could smell it, listen to it, run tests on it, I could even eat it to prove that it makes me sick - but typically the visual confirmation of “its rotten” would be enough to make a judgement call.

However, people are much more complex than vegetables XD. (Well, most people.)

Now take a human.
What can we learn only from his appearance?
He’s a man in his early 40s, gray hair, wearing a neatly pressed suit and tie. His fingernails are trimmed and clean. He has no visible tattoos, his shoes are shined, he carries a briefcase, his eyes are attentive. We can draw many conclusions from just this much, he is a businessman of some sort, well to do or wealthy, has good personal hygeine. There are a thousand subtle nuances of appearance that we can use to make other judgements. And as human beings, we do this every day subconsciously when we look at someone. But we’re only looking at them and judging them based on 1 parameter.

Lets add another parameter :
Sound : He has a clear voice, speaks with authority and clearly, with good grammar and excellent personal skills.

Our initial judgement of him hasn’t really changed with this new evidence. We can also add that he smells like expensive cologne and soap, he pays his taxes and bills on time, we can investigate many different aspects of him and the more we learn the better picture of his character is painted. But at some point another ‘parameter’ may be discovered in which we learn that he is not what he seems to be. And that is the danger of not looking at the whole. Maybe this man goes home and is some sort of terrible pervert. You just can’t know these things by appearance alone.

I think that Carleas statement of male and female and the fact that women have only been allowed into certain fields more recently in our history is one of those ‘factors’ that is only looked at when you consider the whole situation. Simply saying that ‘men are more inventive than women’ may in fact be true when you’re comparing Sample A of men and Sample B of women, but you have to consider what sort of society this data is coming from and look at the whole. Lets say that these first two samples are from the scientific elite. Now take Sample B(women) and compare them with Sample C(Pool Cleaner guys) and you might find that in this comparison, women are more inventive than men, at least with the samples you have chosen. The point is that you can’t make a broad judgement like this without looking at all the factors.

Consider comparing two office buildings full of employees. One of them does consulting, and the other does manufacturing. You notice that the ‘consulting’ firm all have starbucks coffee and the manufacturing firm all use the coffee pot on the facility. You make the fallacious conclusion that ‘consulting people’ __________________. (Insert conclusion here : like starbucks, have better taste, have worse taste, are snobs, whatever).

Except you made this conclusion without looking at the contextual clue that the first firm’s coffee pot is broken this week and that explains why they all have starbucks, and overlook contextual clue #2 that there is a starbucks one block away from their building.

[sdwilson2002]

@Satyr

I
Side note -
{for all the mathematical types}

What is the number 1?

Is it not a generalization, a hypothetical concept attached to a unity to describe its presumed, but not proven, completeness?
Is it not an ideal, referring to a hypothetical and still unproven absolute?
Is it actual?
Is the number one a specific?
Is it not a human prejudice?

Yes, it’s a hypothetical concept. We define it, accept it, then start from there. We call it an axiom. In math, we start with things we assume are true - axioms. Then from there we use logic to create new things. There are only a few axioms, about 12, which all math is based on. Then logic takes over from there, things are deduced to be true using the axioms, or truths we’ve created using the axioms.

As far as I know 1 only means greater than 0 and less than 2 and that’s it. It’s just a thought. We don’t claim it exists.

[Membrain]

@Satyr

I have often come across the modern mind, in all its obtuse, innocent (ignorant), “well-meaning”, pseudo-altruistic glory.

What’s the question for the poll?