Are men are more open-minded than women?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: AE Tavern
Forum Discription: Come here to introduce yourself and discuss almost anything under the sun! Or just to let your hair down...
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28154
Printed Date: 29-May-2024 at 01:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Are men are more open-minded than women?
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Subject: Are men are more open-minded than women?
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2010 at 11:43
|
Today I read some poems by some Persian poetesses, one thing that I found interesting was that they usually ddin't think about different things and often focused on sexual issues, it seems also that they use "bad words" more than men. Let's read some poems: او کام گرفت از من و آرام نشسته He was satisfied by me and has sat calmly, by Rabia Balkhi, one of the first Persian poetesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabia_Balkhi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabi'a_Balkhi or آن تُرک پسر که من ندیدم سیرش That turkish boy who I couldn't see him enough by Mahsati Ganjavi (1089 - 1159 AD), one of the most famous Persian poetesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsati - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsati She says about herself: من مهستیام، بر همه شده طاق I am Mahsati, unique in the world ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2011 at 19:15
|
I personally think men from cultures that follow any one of the Abrahamic faiths have more psychological taboos when sex is concerned, since the said faiths concentrate on the restraint as a male virtue; of course Christianity is the most mind-control-insistent of all three. In all three religions, and the morals they instilled, women are seen as closer to animalistic that men are, therefore the responsibility of sexual seduction lay on them; this released then in a way for the mind-control that is recommended to males, hence they are more free to express themselves when sex is concerned. Since males don't have a legitimate way to express it, their desires become tabbo-ed, and hide under euphemisms or dirty talk, which is in it's core hiding from the reality of it. Arabic and Persian cultures are more openly sensual that the Western one, and more is allowed to be expressed - Omar Khayyam had some sensual poems, and I remember reading years ago a Rusian translation of Nizami's "Layla and Majnun", that was quite sensual. Even the "Songs of Solomon" are kinda explicit, testifing for an earlier time when sexuality was seen for what it was; later those poems had to be interpreted as a symbolic presentation of the love between Jesus and the Ekklesia /a feminised image of the Church/ in order this ancient text to be forced to complay with the changed morality. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2011 at 23:49
|
I think I can answer to the poems in the first post with something I just read in "Comparative Mythology" by Jaan Puhvel, /1987 The Johns Hopkins University Press/. It is a quotation from Rig Veda, and it's about Indrani, the consort of Indra, and in my source I use on the Vedas http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10086.htm - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10086.htm is translated like this: "...6 No Dame hath ampler charms than 1, or greater wealth of love's delights. None with more ardour offers all her beauty to her lord's embrace....". The same verse is mention in Puhvel's book, pg. 60 with the following translation: "... There is no woman more fair-assed that I, not better lubricated, nor more counter-thrusting, not a better thigh-spreader..." Of course, we are talking here about a different time, when sensuality was considered divine, the only creation left to humans, an act that connected humans to gods and span the universe around. This time is long gone, with the Inanna's Sacred Marriage, the Dionysian orgies, the Sacred Passion during the Feast on Beltain. People have not too much restrain and moral baggage to carry around, too much control over their senses, that don't allow for a real abandon to take place in their over-civilized psyches; this goes more for men, little less for women. ------------- |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2011 at 07:26
|
Having seen one or two porn movies.... Men watch these, but women actually do it.... ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2011 at 15:06
|
What does porn have to do with anything? - men figure there as well as women do. Porn-watching women react to it in the same way porn-watching men do, so it's the same.
------------- |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2011 at 15:24
|
Are men are more open-minded than women?
------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2011 at 15:52
I'm not really sure of your point here. Are you trying to connect these poems with porn? That aside you are aware the porn industry caters for men and women, and employs both in this pursuit. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2011 at 20:28
Innocence has nothing to do with my remark, mate. Nor is porn any kind of open-mindedness, in fact, most porn-users hid the fact that they use it, and make a secret pleasure out of it. This is only an evidence how far we are from the natural perception of sexuality that sees it as an force of nature. In fact, porn exists only because of the stagnated post-Abrahamic faiths morality that tabbo-ed what is only natural and made of it something else. There is no porn in the sculptures in the Khajurano temple http://www.india.travelsphoto.com/khajuraho.php - http://www.india.travelsphoto.com/khajuraho.php , nor in the Vedic hymn part of which I posted here, /and I can come up with more examples/ those are religious visions that see sexuality as the force that turns the universe around, that's why they were created in the first place. If we can go back to the perception of sexuality as a natural force to be enjoyed and seen as pure as nature is, the porn-use-need will vanish, since it feed on the suppression of sexuality; and the more suppressed one is, the more warped their fantasy is. Hence, porn is the opposite of the open-mindedness, it's a sickness due to the decline of perception of natural-ness and purity of nature in our post-modern world. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2011 at 20:29
------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2011 at 05:28
I have to disagree here DQ it has been my broad based experience with all three that they are quite capable of not only killing.. drinking... and carousing around... even when married; then you might believe. I really don't believe in the psych taboos you ascribe to them. Certainly there will be numbers of exceptions how many and how much of an honest response you might get if ya posed the question is speculative at best.
I also believe the context must and always be directed to era in the development of the aforementioned and any proscribed taboos.
What was taboo three thousand years ago or 1500 years ago is not necessarily taboo today. Nor will you get an honest answer necessarily or the answer one might expect to hear... because those who might vividly ascribe to a faith, may or may not consider it's founding principals as necessary for them to practice it according to their definition of practice. Fundamentalists? yes. But how many will actually subscribe to that definition.
best
CV ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2011 at 09:34
Male vanity show!That's a implanted tactic of females,evolution on work!Have You ever seen female dog fight against male one?!?Why!!! Survival! |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2011 at 19:48
Well, I didn't imply that men don't mess around with women, I'm far from thinking that. What I mean is that in general such behavior is seen as something to be done and forgotten, while the sitting in home women are spared such tom-catting - what is that? This is not open-mindned-ness, this is taboo-ing something that is to be done as an anomaly, like certain sexual techniques that many men with go to a professional for, instead of "polluting the marriage bed with it". This is how a taboo works, this is what feed the porn industry, and this is the very opposite of an open mind. Moreover, the tom-catting is not generally something to brag about in mixed public, but only in male company, in a pub, when having male conversations; why is that? Social taboo, no matter if one realizes is or not. There was some social research that shows that men don't like to talk about their type women, in order not to be seen as not-macho ones; while women talk about their types with no problems. Here the social stereotype - men are supposed to be seen as self-controlling, even when they go after women; that's why the said women in the male-bragging stories are portrayed as "being done", not as "doing" - so the male-self-control image stays unharmed. This is not an open-mind, IMHO, because it requires staging of any happenings to show the male there being the active one who is enjoying, "being serviced". I worked for some years in th Bulgarian Ministry of Defense, as a civil employee, and had witnessed lots of the those ways. From this what I see here, the situation is not much different, au contrare, I see more self-control prejudice here, I suppose because of the stronger role religion plays in the US as compared to Bulgaria that is a largely atheistic country. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2011 at 19:50
No, but I had seen female cat fighting with a male one, and if she wins, she pushes him aside, as no-good; if he wins, then he had proved himself good for breeding. But I don't see what this have to do with open-minded-ness. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2011 at 23:22
|
I ken your direction DQ but must still disagree..with where ya going with the definition of a taboo.
For most men it's a power domination thing centered around property ownership which most still believe women....fall under.. no matter what they profess publicly. As Howard Cosell once said and I para here "it's in the genes". Religion created taboo not men's hormones. And whether that centered around purity of blood lines and or practices that were intended to ensure health and hygiene makes little difference.
Because initially.... with I grant some noted exceptions...religion and leadership with subsequent taboo creation is still... a..s it was then dominated by men. But I just don't see the psych arguement. The ' domination-property arguement'? You bet.
But it is a delight to converse whether we agree or disagree...and in all honesty we are probably closer to agreement then the opposite.
best
CV
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2011 at 14:34
|
It probably depends on the individuals, their upbringing, and their culture or religion. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2011 at 16:42
|
Woman says http://centerforiiit.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/the-evolution-of-man-and-woman-funny/ - http://centerforiiit.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/the-evolution-of-man-and-woman-funny/ man says http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html I say,do not lie yourself cause they use male brain capacity,saving their own brain!Most of all cause of their function of mother and family pillar!She is looking for safe place for offsprings raising,even they are not your!?!"She" just lay the "eggs".  |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2011 at 00:40
Well, the three Abrahamic religions were created by men, they are patriarchal and aimed at control - control of actions, feelings, power, politics, it's all in the bag. So, those religions aim at controlling - and all actions that are seen as destructive, or non-productive are deemed wrong and have to be put under control, to be tabooed; this goes for example for autoerotism, all sexual techniques that don't result in a pregnancy, etc. Now, Onan was chastised for having practiced interrupted coitus, not some random woman for having fun with herself; and the Catholic church goes with all those "not this position, not these apertures, not planned pregnancies - in other words no fun, sex is made for producing bodies, not for fun. Those weren't designed by women, in fact forbidding planned pregnancies is a form of male control over the female bodies. religions were made by people, not by air, and in those 3 cases those religions were created by males to control both males and females. Since all our secular morals descend from the religious morals practiced be the particular cultures, those got grafted into our secular morals too - hence Clinton had all kinds of problems for having been serviced /in a most unimaginative way, I have to say/; what this have to do with politics at all? Nothing; it has to do with our secular morals and the sexual taboos that males are subjected to, to a point thaty don't even recognize it. Btw, CV, I don't want to you to agree with me, I enjoy the discussion  ; I would be bored out of my ears if everyone agrees with me.------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2011 at 01:59
Well, medenaywe, I have no idea what kind if women you know, but the kind of women I know are nothing like that; eggs, my foot! This is the male-control idea, to keep women down so they can cook and make sons for them, that's all; it has zero to do with female psychology. That's why in most North European countries people don't marry anymore, because marriage is an old an oppressive institution that bring more misery that anything else. Function of family and family pillar - this is Islamic morals, as offensive to female nature as they can possibly be; that's why Muslim countries are so desperate to keep western culture out of their countries, because it shows a different way of life and thinking, and they are scared that their women will awake up and start slamming them in the face, and demand their rights and lived for themselves. So, don't kid yourself - women are tigers and lions, not hens; the hen thing is male fantasy of security, and male control sanctified by tradition over centuries; from which the males themselves suffer also, only they don't realize that, couse they so want to be the control-holders, and turn themselves into bread-providers. There is liberation in throwing out the traditional family structure, that lamentably most males don't get to know, because they are so set on controlling their women, instead of having lives and letting them have lives too. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2011 at 02:05
I agree with that; one is what one is because of the culture one lives, a culture instill in people rules, morals, whatever, and few dare to rebel and change it; but religion and culture are made by people too, and people can change them when they realize that there is value to be earned by such a change. ------------- |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2011 at 14:16
|
Don Quixote de la Mancha just find Your Sancho Panza that will always agree with you!If this was Facebook will comment "unlike"!
|
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2011 at 00:52
And what good is that? Why would I like someone to agree with me - so I never get challenged, never learn anything, and die from boredom  ? Nah....in battles would the truth be born...and a real Don never shuns an honest fight------------- |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2011 at 01:03
|
You are lucky one cause windmills are in again also your cause for battle against it!?!Hasta la vista!
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2011 at 10:47
This is the 10th Century mentality that's prevelant in the Middle East. And not confined to Islam either.
The attitudes toward women are one of the things that will come back to bite them.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2011 at 11:24
|
Please do not mix up virtual stereotypes of sexes here!They were created to hide real animal features of man and women.Lay "eggs" means birth of offspring.If you have not understand my attitude above it is out of sexist one.I am trying to talk about natural resources they both have received from the beginning,out of any virtual made stereotype have created till now by any civilization.Why do you thing "western" concept is better than Islamic or Hindu&Buddhist?Behind "western" concept hides trap that leads to "insects society".Both male and woman are overdosed with sexist philosophy,as it was exposed above .Someone have pushed all eugenic allusions inside high density human society?Sex and the city and traditional values of life do not go together people? |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2011 at 13:46
|
What I was eluding to has nothing to do with Western vs. Eastern, or one religion vs another. Time, time is what I was talking about. It's taken 1,000 years for us to get where we are. And by we I mean all of us. A major portion of the world has moved ahead in thinking and particularly in attitudes toward women. There are places where attitude adjustment is lagging far behind the majority.
Again none of this is directed to any one religion or Geographic locale. However, the middle east is one of the ares that are behind.
Why do you thing "western" concept is better than Islamic or Hindu&Buddhist?Behind "western" concept hides trap that leads to "insects society".Both male and woman are overdosed with sexist philosophy,as it was exposed above .Someone have pushed all eugenic allusions inside high density human society?Sex and the city and traditional values of life do not go together people?
You make a huge assumption based on nothing, I don't think Western ideas or concepts are better than anyone else's.
What I do believe is you have an incredibly twisted idea about how men view women. Sex and the city and traditional values of life do not go together people? Sure they do. Nothing in the traditional values of life, certainly the ones I grew up on, and I can assure you that there was no "Whoopee" in the Wesleyan Methodist environ at that time, excludes "Sex in the City".
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2011 at 14:10
|
We are talking only facts here people.Let me start here: http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/ - http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/ and little of this here(animal versus human role): http://www.unc.edu/%7Elorelei/sexroles.html - http://www.unc.edu/~lorelei/sexroles.html also this: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/the_social_roles_of_men_and_wo.html - http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/the_social_roles_of_men_and_wo.html |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2011 at 14:53
|
Those are opinions and theories, not facts. Time is the factor here, and evolution of social structures. Look to anthropology for some answers here, not quacks. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2011 at 23:46
Virtual stereotypes have nothing to do with anything - most people make a very clear separation between the ideas of sex and having kids; any given woman had sex more times in her life that the number of kids she has. The natural resources are not given to men by nature, they keep with with physical power - the stronger animal, etc, this is tool of control, enshrined by tradition. Why do I think the Western one is better - because it's more fair, women are given more chances to be personalities, humans, not someones' breeding bags. Traditional values - another tool of repression, you mean. I don't understand what do you mean by "insect society". Btw, sex has nothing to do with free mind, this is some male fantasy and fear that all women that are not beaten to pulp, dressed like mummies, and kept at home will have sex with someone else - this is utterly false. Who is overdosed with sexist philosophy, and who exposed that above - I'm utterly confused here. The only thing I see here exposed is male fears that women are going to somehow get some human value and start seeing themselves as humans with choices and rights. As for the sex and the City, I can't comment on that - I have better things to do that waist time with such straw. Btw, you are misunderstanding the nick I have - DQ is not some loony who is fighting with non-existent stuff; he is an idealist, a person taking the huge risk to look beyond the traditional understandings, values and physicalities, and to see a different reality. This that no one else is seeing it doesn't matter, he doesn't care about that, he is going along his road, paying his price of being what he chose to be. He is a most worthy fellow, who is aware of the price of everything we get to do in this life, and pays his; not some brat spoiling for a fight, or just fighting just for the hell of it. He is a symbol for all idealists who ever lived, and who dared to live as they saw it, no matter what - and this is why I chose this nick. ------------- |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2011 at 01:20
 |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2011 at 20:08
|
I figured I better explain whey I do so rave against the traditional values /before someone accuses me in anarchism/ - because they make people act and think artificially. Like the traditional gender roles - that are suppressive to females, who are supposed to be homemakers even when they want to be something else, like individual with careers and their own lives; and turning males in nothing but food-providers, what kind of life fulfillment is that? People are to live together because they fulfill each other, complete each other, not because they have no other choice, and because family is to be kept at any price. That's why I say that traditional values are empty, and make people miserable for life, because they try to keep appearances while they die from inside - this is no value, but torture Of course all this goes with the open mind - only open-minded people can truly embrace the insecurity of the equal gender relationships, most people are hiding behind the false security of the traditional values, and use them like walking sticks; unfortunately I had seen more males clinging to those "traditional values" that females, /because of the added control of it/ so I come again to my main point that in general women are more open-minded than men. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2011 at 00:55
If not 'traditional values'.. what then should I peruse
To old to be an anarchist.... ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2011 at 18:59
Just human values I suppose free from conventions. But this is only my opinion - I never said that everyone "should" ponder on this or that.Anarchism is old too, old and beaten up and widely misunderstood - but this is a topic for another thread. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2011 at 21:09
|
Free from convention?
Alas DQ no such thing has ever existed imo. Convention or societal cultural development (your choice of terminology) has always driven values.. be it in their creation or subsequent usage and or even alteration or elimination.
Values were, and are, designed in the primacy by men for men. Whether it be to salve their conscience or to promote their expansion of centralization and power.
Or to serve as beacon of sorts in the guidance of their behavior which leads right back into the former.
Consequently, a value (traditional or other) you may or may not approve of... that ntl is still considered necessary proper and fit by many around you or I... will always be a potential source of contention. The point of contention is immaterial. It will still exist.
And so will the values, in some form or another, accepted or rejected by whomever until rejected or replaced. And historically that is not done very frequently or generally very successfully. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2011 at 02:59
I agree with you here. And this is why I rave against the conventional values - because they are not absolute, not value for their own value, but tools to regulate the particular society they are used in; hence all bunch of unequalities had been introduced and enshrined as "traditional values"; some of which are outright harmful. No, this is not to my liking - I dream of human values that are value in itself, like freedom of expression, freedom choice, gender equality, not in words but in real valuing the uniqui-ness of individuals - and i know that this is dangerous for any society, since societies are balanced by relinquishing freedom, not obtaining it; but what a trap this is, what a trap! Traps are bad, they create only broken dreams and personal misery. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2011 at 11:03
|
Agreed. yet we dance around the logic and the reality that is... when we say or expect a definition of values or deny that values remain nothing more then abstract ideas (until placed into practice)... that in and of themselves.... can not create themselves.
Never could.
Consequently that trap as ye refer to it....is self and collectively induced.. thru self and collective creation.. for self and collective motivation and agendas...and self and collectively adhered too
for self and collective satisfaction. Be it for control and manipulation and or because it's viewed as self and collectively necessary.
It's called the history of the developement of human society.
In the end you might believe the abscence of 'tradtional values' superior...the opposition will deny that.
So...my advice?
Drink heavily of the grape.. dance around the fire and to hell with the world if ya don't like it.
Unfortunately that will only last a while and then it's back into the reality of it, liked or other.
Always fun DQ...always fun.
 ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2011 at 14:59
|
Sperm donation centers are ready for "new human" model?!?Instead of reproduction males we will solve problem with simple "one hand work" maybe future virtual vagina adapter that will deliver nice examples of material to the Queen automated department?!?I have tried to talk about this inside topic about homosexuality but nobody take it serious.Serious is because of units which DNA info will be lost in the future and we need all units mutations.Somehow I believe that behind our superior society stands parts in which humans have evolved same as mastiffs that were spoken before!?! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2011 at 21:08
In the year 2525
Zager and Evans In the year 2525 ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2011 at 00:16
CV reads my mind! Look this remake from Laibach:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4D7L-PBmRc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4D7L-PBmRc in addition of this will say only that human genome had been sampled in 15 june 1996,so before that nobody could have been sure about their real parents,especially father's part of ancestry! |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2011 at 01:12
|
Next step:your grandpa married his half sister cause he had never known that and mastiffs have been done !!!Our human features were modeled using mastiffs&pigeons breeding technics!Am I wrong maybe?!?This way was divine one once: Osiris was the first child of http://www.egyptianmyths.net/nut.htm - Nut and http://www.egyptianmyths.net/geb.htm - Geb , and therefore the brother of http://www.egyptianmyths.net/seth.htm - Seth , http://www.egyptianmyths.net/nephthys.htm - Nephthys , and http://www.egyptianmyths.net/isis.htm - Isis . He was married to his sister, Isis. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2011 at 00:36
Of course the values cannot create themselves - people do create them; the question it what values there would be created and accepted, and what capacity of change there is for them - the values and the people who create them. Traps are never positive and they are not imaginary either, but very real ones - I know something about that on my own hide. I can get the collective inducement - after all civilization is built on ceding freedom, not no giving one. But personal satisfaction - come on now...this is a beg-time story for me. There is no personal satisfaction in traditional value-based relationships - there is only habit, taking for granted /aka false security/ mutual use and abuse, and personal misery people just get used to. Is this good for the society - probably, at some point of the human development, but this doesn't mean that it has to be the same forever. Absence of traditional values as superior - why not? If everyone thinks like that, whats' the problem? Reality is what people make it, no one else makes it ...so traditional values can be changed to something better and more humane and less oppressive and hypocritical, this is not a dream, but a perspective. Dances around the fire is not what I'm taking about; I'm not talking about some spasmotic rebellion, but about conscious change in human behavior oriented towards more humane values, that in time maybe could become more accepted. Then there wouldn't be a fall back to reality, because reality would be it, not some temporary escape in one way or another. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2011 at 03:33
|
''but about conscious change in human behavior oriented towards more humane values, that in time maybe could become more accepted. Then there wouldn't be a fall back to reality, because reality would be it, not some temporary escape in one way or another.''
Cudos for 'keeping on trying' but it falls short when one realizes that 'behavior' is a process of thousands of generations over eons of time... of brain developement.. in and of a consequence of cause and effect and experience as man's ancestors formulated into it's present form. A personal subjective desire for that which might be defined as 'humane values' remains just that. And in the end might even be ascribed as 'traditional' if accepted by a particular ethnic or theologically minded group...no matter the size of the group.
Ntl...Collective conscience acceptance of the same while perhaps desirable has not often been demonstrated as viable or even practical on occasion.
The record does not support it in any overwhelming terms other then to manipulate and maintain what we have already alluded to..be that defined as traditional or other.
As for reality.... it is... merely that.... which is accepted by the layman usually.
Not the philosopher or theologian perse (They perchance believe what it should be).
It is what it is...what can be perceived and rarely questioned. As to whether it can be created in toto has yet to be determined. For in truth it already has..and the best the naked ape can ascribe to is an understanding of it and just possibly an acceptance of his position within.
Be well DQ. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2011 at 04:19
"...a process of thousands of generations over eons of time... of brain developement.." I think that's somewhat an oversimplification of behaviour by picking out the choice bits, and doesn't take into account exposure to the immediate family unit, or alternative. Behaviour on an individual basis is learned in the now. This means it is adaptive to the input supplied at the times, regardless of it being truthful or not, and is therefore not reliant on anything which isn't in the environment which a person experiences in their lifetime. This means that it is more than possible for change to be dictated by man at any given time. Religious doctrine is probably the best examples of this kind of change. As for reality, this interests me a great deal. How much of reality can you prove exists? Accepted reality is the acceptance by the individual that what they perceive to be fact and not only perception. Can you prove that what you perceive to be any more than illusory? ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2011 at 05:48
Alas a Alain don't have the time to give this the in depth response it deserves as I go back out in about an hour.
Ntl. Quickly.
I think that's somewhat an oversimplification
That's moot... as it might be exactly appropriate for another. Iow. it's not me dodging.. it's a recognition that to date there have only been three or four active responders to the op. And I always consider the others who might be viewing who may or may not have the intellectual acumen you or I might profess or enjoy... who are... for whatever reason.... neither have an interest or an appreciation of the more metaphysical aspects we skirt here.
Behaviour on an individual basis is learned in the now. This means it is adaptive to the input supplied at the times, regardless of it being truthful or not, and is therefore not reliant on anything which isn't in the environment which a person experiences in their lifetime.
That is partially correct if one understands the cerebral necessary immediacy of reaction counter reaction to stimuli... certainly in situations requiring immediate reaction....life threatening situations etc. But I submit that cognitive..to include personal behavior... is learned essentially by one during the formative period expressed by the mainstream to include past experience not merely in the immediate environment. This experience continues throughout life but may or may note effect behavior. The rest is reaction. I do agree with your theological example insofar as change being possible.
That however begs the issue of what caused the formulation and requirement for change in the first place. As neither of us can objectively determine or specifically state what might have been the practice 15000 years ago. So it remains a relatively new change....nor has it changed significantly in the past 2000 years as far as I am concerned with the exception or addition of Islam 1500 years ago. I discount the Prot reformation or the orthodox as a schism of ideologies within an already accepted theology. Reasons for as we know multitudinous.
How much of reality can you prove exists? Accepted reality is the acceptance by the individual that what they perceive to be fact and not only perception. Can you prove that what you perceive to be any more than illusory?
three part response:
First what I can physically perceive no more no less. Anything else is the realm of the meta and what I might believe to accept without physical verifiable proofs..commonly referred to as faith in the theological perspective. The method in history and science.
I do however tend to agree they (others not necessarily myself in all cases) accept not necessarily as fact... but as reality... what is accepted by themselves and others.
Yes..... by getting cut on a fence line yesterday... when a calf threw me into it not only did I perceive the results but others there as well did. So the basis of acceptance was not mine alone. It was verifiable hence by my visit to the hospital for 8 stitches, a shot in the arm and the bruises all over. It continues to be verifiable viz the comments made by my associates..hence not illusory. As there was no cause for a suspect of mass delusion on the parts of six full grown men when it occurred.
Be well.
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2011 at 15:44
Again, Centrix, that is is not nesseccary to continue being only because that is has always been. Eons of time and whatever - not exactly, the traditional values had been like this in like what, 2000 yeas or so - this is not eons by any means. Nor is any layman suppose to accept them - this is a matter of personal consciousness. - a collective one does not really exist, what exists is acceptance of the status quo that people do so they are not excluded from their surroundings. As for the record I take it you mean than people in toto accept the status quo as it is in their personal surroundings - this is true but only because there is no other choice; in another choice was to present itself, the things might be different. In the case of the gender roles I so rave against - there is a prevalent movement toward canceling of the marital values in Northern European countries, and more people choice just to live together that put this in a socially accepted framework that has the capacity to turn any marriage in a lifelong BSM video with the traditional value being the bonds that allow endless boundless runs on the weaker link /the heterosexual relationships are as a rule unequal, this is what my textbooks on Sociology say anyway/ which means that there is always an axis of power, and whoever is in the weaker position bears the brunt of it, no matter what which gender this person is and the reasons for this notwithstanding. Doesn't this fact give enough reason for a change? Change comes when there is a reason for it and when people are ready for it. I gave here one example that I think fits the OP best, since this example the women are the pulling power to it, being more free-thinking than men who fight tooth and nail for the traditional gender roles, on religious and power front, in the US in particular, as I'm shocked to see /some of those men have vested interest in the said values, but not all/. So, from what I have seen in the US, the traditional family values are stomped on very hard, but this doesn't mean that everywhere it's the same, as in Northern Europe; in Bulgaria also more and more young couples choose to live less conventional lives that the last generations did. So, there is hope for what I'm saying, in due course of time, if not in the US, at least somewhere else. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2011 at 16:04
As for reality, this interests me a great deal. How much of reality can you prove exists? Accepted reality is the acceptance by the individual that what they perceive to be fact and not only perception. Can you prove that what you perceive to be any more than illusory? [/QUOTE]___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Interesting post. On the first paragraph I would comment that since what we know is only learned, what we learn is what we know; so we can change the values we teach and then the next generation would learn the values they learned - nothing is set in stone. As for the reality - I believe it's objective and subjective too - everyone has a different experience, lives in different circumstances and take what they see and live through in different way based on their personalities - so everyone has more or less a different reality. Realities are as many as as unique as many people live that have them - mine black may well be someone else's gray /not to say white, even though that is possible too/. One cannot see, taste or feel what the others do, on any possible plane, we can talk about it, but we experience it differently. This is my opinion anyway. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2011 at 16:27
Are you happen to be a military man, Centrix, if it's not a secret? You sound like one - not that there is anything wrong in it, of course, just very specific - not everyone can be in the military, and the ones that are develop specific way of thinking to help them deal with the specific requirements of thsi field. Anyway, I have the feeling that you put everything in straight lines, with too many given characteristics that you state cannot be changed - life is not like that, IMHO, it's fluid, it's changeable, that's why people have the need to structure it in their brains so to make to controllable. I believe men are far more in need of control that women are, because of the specific roles that had been inserted in their brains through morals secular and religious /whet I started with here/. Hence males tend to live in personal realities that are more structured and more unescapable that women do. Which goes to to other statement I just made - that reality is both objective and subjective, and I personally would put the stress on the subjective, because in the example you are giving here /the calf throwing you on the fence/ yes, the result is tangible, and your fence broke, but the way the calf saw what he did and what you experienced are very different realities. For you and other people - you were thrown, the fence broke, now you have to repair the fence and this is waste of time; but waht about what the calf felt about it? The different realities reveal themselves particularly clear when seen from the point pf view - passive/active elements; that's why in human relationships, say in parent/child one there are two very different and distinctive realities about say. getting a tatoo on one's forehead. If one is to witness any trial, what is seen, done or experienced by the doers and withneses of any possible deed or situation is very different form the ones of the others, hence one feels like everyone si liying their heads off, which is not necessarily true - just a matter of personal realities. ------------- |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2011 at 11:38
|
Behaviour on an individual basis is
learned in the now. This means it is adaptive to the input supplied at the
times, regardless of it being truthful or not, and is therefore not reliant on
anything which isn't in the environment which a person experiences in their
lifetime. That is partially correct if one understands
the cerebral necessary immediacy of reaction counter reaction to
stimuli... certainly in situations requiring immediate reaction....life
threatening situations etc. But I submit that cognitive..to include
personal behavior... is learned essentially by one during the formative
period expressed by the mainstream to include past experience not merely in the
immediate environment. This experience continues throughout life but may or may
note effect behavior. The rest is reaction. Everything learned comes from the past
as it already exists when learnt, even if its creation could potentially happen
seconds prior to absorption. By immediate environment I meant what is there at
hand, which doesn’t necessitates it to have any great longevity at all, only
that it exists.
How much of reality can you prove
exists? Accepted reality is the acceptance by the individual that what they
perceive to be fact and not only perception. Can you prove that what you
perceive to be any more than illusory? three part response: First what I can physically
perceive no more no less. Anything else is the realm of the meta and what I
might believe to accept without physical verifiable proofs..commonly
referred to as faith in the theological perspective. The method in history and
science. I do however tend to agree they (others
not necessarily myself in all cases) accept not necessarily as fact... but
as reality... what is accepted by themselves and others. Yes..... by getting cut on a fence line
yesterday... when a calf threw me into it not only did I perceive the results
but others there as well did. So the basis of acceptance was not mine alone. It
was verifiable hence by my visit to the hospital for 8 stitches, a shot in
the arm and the bruises all over. It continues to be verifiable viz the
comments made by my associates..hence not illusory. As there
was no cause for a suspect of mass delusion on the parts of six full grown men
when it occurred. Be well. Perception of something existing is not
the same as proof of existence, although it might seem very real to the
individual. Even your perception that other people observe is your perception
of their existence and not proof of their existence, making it impossible for
your own perception to back up what you are perceiving. Rene Descartes did his best to prove existence
and could only manage, “I think therefore I am”, though even this begs the
question as to what form this might be in. Myself I can only add the existence
of illusion, and that is because I have seen illusions, and if they are not
real then they must be illusory and
therefore illusions. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2011 at 15:57
Round and round it goes. Abscence of proof is also not proof of abscence. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2011 at 17:26
Absence of proof is one of logic, but where is the logic of looking for something where it is absent?
 ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2011 at 03:53
|
It remains subjective you say it is logic but not all will act within a frame of what you define as logic..Iow. from the perspective of my arm you would deny the logic of the injuries..ie. their exsistence, because you question that it is only my perception that offer proofs of their reality.
That according to the doctor who treated them would be irrational, possibly delusional, and he might well recommend you visit the shrink.
As I said round and round it might go. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2011 at 04:44
Ah, now you are definitely wrong on that score, on the contrary, logic would have it that as you perceive it to be real and can't prove that it isn't, then it is probably safer for you to treat dangerous situations as you perceive them. Put it this way, say there's a truck speeding towards you as you perceive it. Even if there are countless numbers of possibilities of what could really be going on, and the truck scenario is but one in a million, you might be in the real situation with that truck. Although, come to think of it there's also the theory that even if it isn't real but you perceive the situation to be real, then the brain will treat it to be so, as in the falling from a great height in a dream. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2011 at 07:27
|
Rediculous your version of logic is moot and consequently you have fallen victim to your pre-concieved prejudices....iow. you percieve me to be wrong with no basis in logic less your own definition.
Round and round. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2011 at 07:51
I think you have me wrong on this one, as you were saying I would deny your injuries, and I tried to explain that regardless of there being no way to prove what you are perceiving to be fact you have to treat it as so in situations where danger is involved. As for pre-conceived prejudices I'm not sure I really have these, though I would be happy for you to elaborate to enlighten me to my errors in judgement my friend. I don't hold your views in contempt and consider everyone's view on there merits. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2011 at 09:58
Certainly you have them as do I. They are exhibited, as far as my version of logic and perception of realities go, in everything you have posted since we started this chase around the meta-physical merry go round. And you remain free to claim the same for yourself reference myself.
As such, in frankness, my attention is waining hence my interest. As I first ventured into these waters over 40 years ago and see that much has not changed. Consquently my opinions on this stuff at this point are not liable to dynamic and or radical change. Nor is there any potential for gain. For either you or me. Even if either of us had or had not a baser motive for ego enhancement.
As to merits? Viewpoints and merits? And whether one accepts in them in a higher or lower value? And whether or not recognition and or deference should be applied? Moot. And subjective. And dangerous.
And based on the 'perception of the value'
...iow. round and round.History has innumerable examples of when this should not have been done and was and then someone, somewhere, suffered the consequences. I'd rather not...even though I am often required to ntl.
So in conclusion, I leave on that note this thread and you with the field. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |