I was not making an accusation. And, as usual…saying you disagree is not an argument. Of course you are free to simply make assertions and not engage in the linear logical thinking you associate with men. Demonstration of this skill on your part would be at the very least consistent with your hypothesis about what men are good at and is ironic in its absence. And since irony comes up several times here, it should be noted that this irony works against your thesis.
Amazing how effective her communication was despite its being mere insinuation. From the above I assume you have never challenged the conduit model of language - that language (words, sentences) are containers of information - and see her communication as not acting like a conduit. There are interesting articles on how limited, limiting this container model/metaphor for language is. cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/metap … aphor.html
In fact much communication does not function in conduit fashion but is vastly more like pointing - or in the pejorative, insinuating - and by this I mean language used by both men and women.
Irony of course - certainly you will not say this is primarily a female skill - depends on this. Her post included MORE messages, or to put this more correctly, elicits MORE experiences for the reader than a blunt assertion.
It was obvious.
This is mind reading. For all you know she did a nice, linear analysis of semantics. It was not a vague outline in the dark where one needed an intuitive pattern recognition. Introspection is always about the self, unless you are dealing with spirit possession - note, irony, or insinuation if you like.
Oh, God, now you are handing me straight lines.
You define both sexes. You have defined women as a group and you have defined men as a group. You are not women. You are not all men. Therefore you have defined people who are not you. Reread your posts. You tell women what they do, feel, rather than thinking. This is definiing them. You said men live to die. This is definining men. A set that includes members other than you. I notice what you are doing. Do you?
[/quote]
Oh, look. Here you are defining women. You are not a woman. You have defined them here.
Well, the split seems clear enough to me. But I maintain the point of disagreement where women would “be better thinkers” if they were strictly-social creatures. In fact, I say that what pushes them forward the farthest & fastest in the language department at early ages would be precisely-because they cannot ‘think’ that they must memorize the authoritative-linguistic structures from an early age, and then go on to manipulate them according to their intuitive abilities. The problem is: they do not cognize what they are doing with it.
That is the only reason that girls want to be fucked by the “bad boy”. If they could abstract knowledge, then they would come to understand that they are just being used for their sexuality, nothing-more, nothing-less. Then, they would go on to understand and control men even more than they do so now. But this is a moot point anyway; women cannot ‘abstract’ in the first place. The only exception to this rule may be social dominance, because Society is their domain anyway. Within Society, you play by the woman’s rules. Without Society, you play by the man’s rules. Both polar sexes desire to further overcome the other on their own ground, and fail. An intermediary is then necessary: the First Philosopher.
Yes … point out to me all the great & innovative female architects, engineers, physicians, and mathematicians in history. (they don’t exist)
Me think nuff’ said bout that point…
Again, the First Philosopher and shaman of yore, were not female.
This is why females are not allowed into the priesthood. Men genetically-dominated it from the beginning.
The context is always important; language is fundamental as well.
I hypothesize that early tribal languages were strictly-not either noun-or-verb based, because language had not fragmented yet.
Study Latin or Greek; it is easy to see. They confuse gender-neutrality almost all the time. They conceptualize female & male together in many instances, as well as pretenses for time, numbers (of groups), and verb-noun opposition. For example, ‘they’ in Latin referred strictly-to a group of men. Women were not even counted, because they were ignored by language in that sense. The female-predicate of a group consisted only of what I call the “collective-we”. Women were only included in language insofar as they associated with men. Nowadays, in English, ‘they’ has warped dramatically. The concept ‘they’ can now mean one-person, and that person may be male or female.
This is a blatant absurdity compared to its Latin roots!!!
I just gave my reasoning for this above.
You may be right, but your conclusion is invalid. Tribal language did not consist in a form that most people can understand today.
It was so simplistic in its conceptualization that almost nobody can generalize the language in an understandable way except linguists.
It is like having the word ‘ox’ (the letter A) mean 1000000000 different things, and you have to pick out the right context & insinuation.
No, it doesn’t contradict anything!
The difference between ‘individual’ and ‘society’ was derived strictly-from the phenomenon that produced it!
Essentially, I am even saying nothing new. The only reason it seems like I am saying something new is because language fragments exponentially.
Yes, but way back then, their languages were so simplistic that they almost-never, or I guess rarely, differentiated them-selves from the ‘one’-ness of their collective-consciousness. In other words, their languages were merely-reflections of their technological advancements and progress. Yes, they had words to interact with things, but they knew nothing of ‘noun’ or ‘verb’, which I have been pointing out to you. The word-concept ‘ox’ could have easily meant “intelligent” by their standards. And it did, ‘ox’ meant ‘domesticated’ or ‘civilized’. Now apply this conceptualization to the sacredness of the Indian cow and it begins to make sense…
Yes, but this does not tell to us whether women created language or not.
It merely-implies that they could have been the best at implementing & practicalizing language…
…and they were! Women, at best, make language practical, again nothing-more, nothing-less.
Women deal with problem solving by their intuition, senses, memory, and communication skills. There is no room for abstraction.
And language was created by the (male) shaman/chief in general, not the hunters or gathers in particular. Male authority creates language.
Odd is it not how Einstein was a man, a ‘male’ human animal, using his feminine intuition & elegance of thinking created some of the most profound thoughts that mankind has ever known…? It kind of seems like he is a man-and-woman in one person, no? I merely find it a weird thing that you downshift his ‘thinking’ or ‘thought’ and say that rather him being a good “thinker” (which I believe almost all would agree with me), you label him a good “intuitor”.
What if he was both ‘male’ and ‘female’? Would he still be a “man”?
Blasphemy!
Women were NOT ‘shaman’, ever, unless you mean to say that they were ‘oracles’.
There can only be a male Philosopher. He becomes inspired by a female Muse.
He is the ‘superior’ in the relationship, because he can never be replaced, while the woman can be.
It is not an argument, because I have nothing to argue! I physically-cannot argue against a groundless analogy!
If you want a teacher, then you must pick your domain first: “within Society”, or, “without Society”.
What more do you want from me? You are leading this conversation nowhere…
I wonder if she makes this “conscious choice” instinctively or not…
Groundless, again…
I am a man, and I speak on behalf of all men within these contexts.
If I do not, then they may challenge my assertions, arguments, or points at any time…
Even if you were right, then that changes nothing that I have said. It would even add to what I’m saying!
Listen, dear stranger: do not name-drop Lakoff to me. I was lectured under this man when it comes to Language: Mark Johnson.
This is mind reading. For all you know she did a nice, linear analysis of semantics. It was not a vague outline in the dark where one needed an intuitive pattern recognition. Introspection is always about the self, unless you are dealing with spirit possession - note, irony, or insinuation if you like.
[/quote]
So it is mind reading then. So be it. Nothing has changed.
You asked; I answered. What answer would suit you, dear stranger?
According to you I do, apparently…
Yes, I do notice it. I am writing it after all.
What is your point?
Again, this is according to you. It looks to me like I might have hit the nail right on its head!
Oh my, dear stranger!!!
Is that you creasy, running away from me again before I have time to catch you and grab-hold of you???
I wonder if you are “man” or “woman” at this point…
Lets see Unreasonable posts then RU defends… interesting.
Women have no real individuality? The ego of certain males cry out like frightened children… The whole essay cries out in fear. Sorry RU but, really fear predominates the ideals, ideas and thoughts behind this whole obsession. Let loose of it and you will find your answers.
Which mother??? I have or had 3, my biological mother and mother-in-law are both dead, my step mother is a live and well and wonderful.
Which father??? I have 3, bio, step and inlaw, now frankly I despise the inlaw one. Why my in law mother married that pig is beyond me, she was a fantastic woman. I do dearly love my bio father and my stepfather although because there is only 7 years difference between my step and I, I view him as a brother, not a father figure, especially since he started off as a brother-in-law.
Coy has nothing to do with it, OK well step dad and inlaw dad had no influence on my upbringing but the others sure did. Yes even my mother-in-law. She was a mother to me. Her philosophies and beliefs changed me and nurtured me.
My real mother, was a materialistic, pathological liar, and had the mentality of a selfish teenager. She could manipulate anyone with ease, men especially, my mother was a beautiful sexual woman and she took advantage of her beauty to manipulate males. Females she intimidated and coerced them with words. She married my father for money. She came from poverty. All she wanted in life were those things that were denied her through that impovershment. when she found out my father turned away from his wealthy blueblood background she looked down upon him. but since he was a passable meal ticket she stayed with him until I was 13, me being the youngest, at that point she found another man that had financial potential ,she left us.
My father,My Dad is the best human in the world. The largest influence on me and the one person in this universe that I will obey to this day. I dearly love and like my Dad. I only love my mom I did not like her one little bit. Even though she died I still love her and miss our weekly conversations. Afterall part of her is in me.
There you are dear; now it is no wonder why you entered a thread like this. – perfect sense.
Your father is the end of your equality and feminism, but it is just the beginning of your humanism; your father was wrong about humanism. We are not all “human” and neither are we all “equal” thereafter, under the context as if we were “human” to begin with…
What do you fear more than the death of your father? – anything at all?
I don’t fear my father’s death, it is inevitable, we all die. No sense in fearing it. I only will miss his voice and laughter. As I do my mother and mother-in law. they still are with me, inside of me and that is important.
Humans are not created equal as in each having the same abilities, humans can and do balance each other out creating equality. You can’t have a teeter without a totter. We look for those that balance our life, wether it is a mate or friend.
I have the potential to balance you because, I am a friend of sorts and if we do balance each other out then, we create equality between us. If there is no balance then there is no equality. Balance means to pick up the slack where the other lacks. It does not mean one is superior, if you lack, and all of us do, then you cannot be superior. You can only be different.
You should not, there is nothing I have said that warrants being given slack, I have said that people work together and pick up where one cannot be or do. In that, it is picking up slack. You do not give slack in such issues. If you did then you weaken both. When one cannot do something the other can or it may take both working together in concert. Or reaching out to someone else or something else.
RU what is the point then? Normally if there is no competition then there is no claim of winning. I do enjoy debates as well as anyone, I am just a tad argumentative, even when I am wrong I tend to carry on if it is an argument or debate… Its an ego thing.
You have said you wish to learn if you are right about what you have learned or wrong. Debate cannot be the way to go about it. Debate puts both parties in combat mode, defensive and offensive.
I to wish to learn and gather knowledge. I know that what I know will never be complete it will always lack. Learning is a process. Life is a mosiac that constanly changes in its process, it never stays the same even when it does. What I know today about my life and that which surrounds me will be different tomorrow or the next day.
Much of your Gender based education has been given to you by primarliy male educators correct? Written published text is what I mean.
The known and touted Proffesors/doctors etc…
They know some of the female gender but consider that it comes from males not females. It might just be a bit onesided right? I cannot see judging a subject when there is only one view. While facts present themselves as one sided many times. most facts have more than one side, one dimension. Male dominate certain areas of society, true. But is the domination due to the reasons given by only males? did these males bother collaborating with females to complete the gender studies?/ No. Instead they dominated by dominating and dismissing any other view of the whys, hows whens and wheres. Can you really have such faith in lopsided ideas. You can’t if you want to learn. I have always said males are better at somethings and females are better at others. But there are somethings that women and men do equally well if given the opportunities. key word there my friend, opportunities.
Ah Kris…spoken like a true Buddhist… and so right you are.
It is the ego that blocks their seeing the truth.
They need to let go of both the mother and the father and just breathe in that fresh air.
PS. I had actually deleted the druid part in the other thread, how astute you are. You know what we never discussed…how are we actually going to get all of these people together>
=D>
:-" :-" :-" ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
:-" :-" :-"