Maybe it is more about re-educating society, especially men. — Questioner

Yeah, but that's literally fascist talk. It also rests on you assuming everything you've said is right. That is clearly not the safest way to go intellectually, and in practice is more liable to getting you killed or imprisoned (not you personally, but to go forth with some sociological position without recourse to even doubt is generally not conducive to goodness in my understanding). I also note that you've been given at least some information that should have you in doubt about the universality of your position. If it requires telling millions, perhaps billions, of other women they're wrong, or need to be re-conditioned to not desire what they desire (that is hte logical inference here - not words in your mouth) then maybe you should rethink that approach?? I certainly would.

No, but they are human with the usual human drives for self-autonomy. — Questioner

I don't think even you quite understand what you're talking about here: plenty of women do not want self-autonomy in hte way you are talking about it. Freedom from abuse, yes, in almost all cases (there are some weird people out thre). Freedom from voluntary submission? You're barking up the wrong tree. Would you like my wife to explain to you how and why she feels, thinks and desires what she does? I'm sure she'd be happy to set you right. This all smacks too strongly of the horrific shit Simone de Beauvoir liked to say:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Oh no!! Don't give the poor women the choice!! They wont do what i want!! It's anti-feminist.

No, just looking at the history. — Questioner

This is objectively, inarguable not the case. You are literally suggesting a set of social behaviours change and many of htem are ones women actively choose to engage in. If you were just looking athe history, all you would be doing is describing situations you think you've seen play out. You're not doing that. You're prescribing. As you did in the first quote I've used in this response. Its not in question that you're suggesting a set of beliefs be enforced, and you've laid out the beliefs clearly.

I have told you of at least one complete sane, normal western woman who would laugh at your position. Maybe address some of the criticisms rather continuing to wax lyrically. I wanted a discussion, rather than fictions. You're not really engaging anything substantive by posting mythologies and poems with some flowery thoughts attached.

The narrative most influencing the bent of the Western world for the last thousand years is tipped toward the masculine, rather than the feminine. — Questioner

That's definitely semi-true. This is definitely a totally overblown way of saying it, but you're not totally wrong. Perhaps there's something here... but to then ignore the inherent value continually upheld (albeit, essentially against their will... not what's in question right in this exact part) for women, and their inherently important roles and contributions is a mistake I think. It's historically wrong, anyway.

Reclaiming the balance between the masculine and feminine qualities (that characterizes the ancient wisdom) shifts us out of the patriarchy, to a more truly “free and equal” society. — Questioner

I think when you're resting on terms like "the ancient wisdom" you're not really credibly approaching a real problem with a view to a real solution. Can you say what you, personally, mean by "Free and equal"? That may help.

The Bible (men) rewrote the feminine story. — Questioner

No. The bible continued a story that had be going on for at least a few thousands years already. This is an oft-repeated falsity. The 'feminine story' - what does this refer to, in your mind?

The ancient wisdom was lost; the heart of the feminine was lost. — Questioner

Right. I'm sure you can at least see why this isn't moving, even if effective wording.

This requires that women reclaim their voices, and that men listen. — Questioner

That is all we have heard for a decade - and that's a good thing, no doubt. You aren't a man, so you do no get an opinion this, apparently. You're just not listening if you disagree (this is in jest, stress-testing that awful logic).

by Speaker Johnson — Questioner

Great. Are you suggesting that one or two examples here represent either a patriarchy, some illustration of the other couple of billion people we're speaking about or something else? Because a couple of examples of an Evangelical Christian pressing his religious lines is pretty pithy support for hte thesis you're putting forward. I'm not even suggesting he's the only example. Point stands.

We often find that Indigenous cultures retain the ancient wisdom — Questioner

No. We don't. We've been over that one. It seems like you're running on popular, romantic ideals about 'indigenous' cultures which not only don't hold up to scrutiny, are directly destructive of an accurate, fair representation of complex pre-colonial cultures. I take it you've not actually gone into any scientific/socilogical/anthropological work and looked instead at pop socio and activist mythology framing? I'll try to sort some stuff out here.

Firstly, "indigenous' culture is a misnomer variously applied to native populations, conquering populations who successfully either wiped out or assimilated their conquests, cultures who re-wrote their own histories that way etc..
Second, Specific, circumscribed examples does not shift te fact that almost all cultures, including indigenous cultures, have been hierarchy based and men, with the monopoly on force, tend to be at the top. It is well known that indigenous cultures across time and space were mostly patriarchal. By some estimates 70-80% vs something like 10% for just matrilineal - which does not mean matriarchal so the ratio is probably more like 12:1. It is pretty clear from the research that there are no Matriarchies the way we think of them today, in the record.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228014570_Egalitarianism_Among_Hunters_and_Gatherers
Hopefully you have access. There's a couple of related papers listed which are also interesting in this way.

that our role is to let the women lead — Questioner

hahahahaha. Oh yep. No. Your role is to let men lead.

See how utterly stupid this type of ignorant thinking is?

Here's the truth about the Apache nation - — Questioner

No, that is a random blog that makes you feel as if you have support for your position. I note that your response to Ecurb fully explaining why you're wrong is to suggest that somehow the fact that there are still problems in modern times, that somehow has any relevance whatsoever to the accuracy of your claim. Let's go through some aspects of live for Apache women:

https://www.desertusa.com/desert-people/apache-women.html?utm_

"The Apache girl’s puberty ceremony signaled, not only the end of her childhood, but her availability for marriage. "A full oval face is liked and medium height, not too tall," according to an Opler informant. "We like small hands and feet, but not too thin. A plump, full body is best. Legs should be in proportion to the rest of the body and not too thin. Mouth and ears should be in proportion to the rest of the face, not big.""

"After her puberty ceremony, the young Apache woman, valued more for her economic and practical worth than for her beauty, often faced a marriage negotiated by her family, many times without her agreement, sometimes without even her knowledge. Mindful that the man would join the young woman’s family – an arrangement called "matrilocal" by anthropologists – her parents drafted a marriage based, not on romantic love, but on material need. They sought out a proven and, frequently, older man, preferably one with tribal respect, wealth and connections, who would underwrite the future of the young woman, contribute horses to her father, marshal arms for the family’s protection, and contribute game to the family larder."

Sounds pretty familiar. IN fact, we got rid of these practices in the West close to 100 years ago (yes, I'm playing fast and loose. The point is we don't do this). Further, these cultures were note delicate "ancient wisdom holders". They were brutal, warlike human beings like us:

"Sometime in the second half of the 19th century, a Mescalero Apache woman called Gouyen, or Wise Woman, tracked down a Comanche chief who had murdered and scalped her husband.... She lured the chief, staggeringly drunk, into the night. She pounced on him like a mountain lion, ripping out his throat with her teeth. She then stabbed him and scalped him with his own knife. She stole his headband, breechclout and moccasins....Gouyen, said her chief, "is a brave and good woman. She has done a braver thing than has any man among the Mescaleros. She has killed the Comanche chief; and she has brought his weapons and garments to her people. She has ridden his mount. Let her always be honored by my people."


There are some cultures that still treat women this way, and worse. Do you know which they are? Africa, South Asia, Melanesia and Latin America. They have a profound and inarguable monopoly on killing women because they are suspected of have too much power. They are, by-and-large, communities not-too-far-removed from their indigenous cultures.

Its a dangerous, pernicious myth that "indigenous' cultures, as badly defined as that is, were somehow immune the slings and arrows of human nature. They, it seems, were far more resolute in their love of blood and violence, in many, many cases. They certainly, without a doubt, did not treat women on the whole better than modern, Western society. Pretty much none except a handful of South-Eastern tribes and the Cathars. Even those are nuanced.

It would help if you could restrict a conversation about real-world issues, to real-world premises and supports. If that's not the point, all good. But you seem to want to do philosophy.

I thought the selling point of IR is that it can explain error in perception where DR cannot. — Ludwig V

What? Maybe someone else is positing that. I think its patently clear that there is no way to assess error beyond error as a mathematical/statistical exercise or a purely practical one (trial and error, i guess) no matter which theory you prefer. The DRist, I think, wants to say that a mediated perception is direct enough to capture error. I just disagree.

Well, we need to assess whether given indirect perceptions are veridical by some means that is independent of them. What do you suggest? — Ludwig V

No we dont Is my position. I don't see why. And given the above, I can't see why we would try (but that's baked into the disagreement, so just noting for completeness).

There's no better way of knowing what's going there. — Ludwig V

Exactly. So you're admitting you're seeing light which presents the sun as it was eight minutes ago. I shall leave this there and just see if it lands.

I don't think there's any reasonable ground for doubt — Ludwig V

Which is batshit insane on the facts, to my mind. Not concluding error might be reasonable, but denying any reason for doubt is just... good god. Not sure i'm cut out for such a wild claim. The following doesn't help, because its entirely recursive.

I would say most religious belief comes from intuition and awareness. The deepest form of belief comes from direct awareness of God - knowledge of God, not speculation. Read Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich etc. — EnPassant

Yes, intuition, but in this case coupled with obvious falsities. You cannot be directly aware of a God which does not exist, and therein lies the problem. If your suggestion were to be taken seriously, those who do not feel this impulse would be defective. And that wouldn't be a Great God, so a couple of problems there. I am well aware of what are called transcendent religious experiences. You can get these from taking LSD. They are not at all convincing to anyone but someone who already believes.

I think you maybe do not understand how much of what you're saying is unsupported speculation despite it perhaps being common. Its quite hard to respond to the second paragraph withou tjust wholesale saying "Well, that makes very little sense". So I'll just note my discomfort with responding that way to something so clearly genuine and important to you.

Not exactly that the rule is culturally located, but its expression seems culturally bound at least.
A good, solid Catholic queer, for instance, would want to be put through conversion therapy so as to avoid what they determine is the result of being gay: Hell. In Islam, its (this is definitely cartoonish, i'm just making a point) transition surgeries. In the liberal west, its to be left alone to live one's life.

I'll take my rent now.

Which is exactly, and you've not even begun to start thinking about addressing this what i said it was: You saying there are women who don't fit into your framework. You've decided you know better, and should reeducate those women, despite them saying (to these concepts, not you personally): No thank you. I will enact my choices, as is my right. Not only this, you do it with reference to illdefined concepts that you cannot even explain:

deny their inner knowing — Questioner

The responsible thing to do, one would think, is to acknowledge that you have it wrong in hte face of contrary information.

Women are not monolithic., they do not overall share your views and perhaps you're trying to enforce a view and set of beliefs about women. You have entirely ignored that I've presented views of real women on these subjects. That is problematic, regardless of who's bringing it to your attention - i'm sure you can see why???

I suggest it is likely this will go unaddressed, though. You started a thread and seem to only want people to agree with you. Can you explain? Is it just too uncomfortable to work through your positions?

The problem with this approach is that it relies on those elements being caught in the phrase. Any which are not, escape us. So it's either a Bibllcal heuristic, applying only to those apparently inarguable wrongs, or it's not particularly useful because too many differ on how they want to be treated.

It wasn't new and I gave you two, thought-out, direct substantive replies largely populated by ideas gleaned from, and checked over by women.

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you? — Questioner

You did exactly this dismissiveness, though, in light of new perspectives from women. I am having a hard time understanding how this isn't just intense projection.

I understand what you mean.

1 - yep, I agree there
2 - I don't think that's accurate. They offer descriptions. and based on the 1 and 2
3 - we think we might have a grasp on this in a way that avoids certainty often gleaned from 2, which is betrayed by 1.

But as noted earlier, using a public system of checks and balances we can get on with it. And science to me, appears to be the art of getting this done - and likely explains why its so successful: You could think whatever you want, in terms of 3, and 2 would roughly speaking remain the same. Its helpful. But not something we could, on metaphysical levels, call veridical, I don't think (because 1). Maybe i'm just easier with discomfort.. indeed...

You don't have confidence that you can tell what's true and real? — frank

Not really. I tend not to think about it. But I also have ways of using those words that don't result in madness when I do fall into that. But admittedly, maybe once of twice I year I have a really tense hour or two.

I think you may have a very hard time learning things.

Starting with that confidence — frank

Wait, what?

Both sides of this argument start with irrational confidence in our ability to discern what is true and real. Neither side proposes to build a bridge to that confidence. — frank

So yeah, rejecting that because its absurd (in the technical sense).

we observe by way of anatomy and physiology that perception of the world appears to be constructed by the brain out of discreet electrical impulses. As you note, this is not a metaphysical argument, it's a scientific fact. — frank

Which is why IR is so attractive to those not bent to fall away into impractical discussion of how things feel.

Ye Jo Halka Halka Saroor Hai - Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan
Ei Raat Tomar Amar - Hemant Kumar (i think. Playback singer so might be wrong).

That is to say, none of this discussion is responsive to the metaphysical question of what the fundamental constitution of reality is. As in, what is the apple in the noumena? — Hanover

Because it doesn't need or want to. However, the DRist must have a way to do this. IRists reject it. The noumena is as it is - not as we see it. And that is not because they don't match. It's because they are fundamentally different things. We just have words for one and not the others.

All I see are IR descriptions being given as DR descriptions. That's why I started just replying to discreet issues. I can't make heads or tails of saying what Banno does and then saying "Direct". Baffling. I hope that's where it ends, personally.

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you? — Questioner

This is... quite telling. You do not want to engage with the communities you're disparaging, and yet you want to attack (that's what this is) someone suggesting you do this. That is extremely odd. If it were reasonable to approach a community from only the perspective of it's critics, we'd have wiped each other out millennia ago. If you disagree with the actual thing gave as critique, I would like you to let me know that, so we could discuss, instead a sexist ad hominem. Funnily, I am relaying female perspectives to you in the main. Funny... wrong females I guess.

I believe the vast majority of women have the same instincts as me. — Questioner

Well there's a mistake. They don't. Obviously.

for example needing the acceptance of a domineering man, or a domineering group - and in acquiescence, they obey. — Questioner

This is why. You are putting words and thoughts into other women's heads. They don't like it (as they tell me directly). You do not seem open to this. My wife predictably laughed at these initial suggestions - which itself suggests they are wrong, even if you think my wife is an asshole.

You're twisting things. And showing that you do not understand where I am coming from. — Questioner

Not at all. This is a response to exactly how you come across. That is not on me. I actually checked all of this with my wife before responding (although, not further responses save one aspect noted below). You may not like how I am responding, but to suggest i "just don't get it" is a cop out and one that is obviously not apt here. We're discussing competing views, not verifiable facts.

there should not be one who dominates, and one who submits. Submission requires a surrender of a part of you. — Questioner

Is this normative, or just saying this shouldn't be a requirement? I agree with that. But this is exactly what plenty of people naturally, and intellectually desire. I don't think you're coming in good faith to suggest that's never the case (which this sounds like and so is what I'm responding to). My wife has had, over years, to nudge, convince and comfort me becoming more dominant in service of her preferences. Not mine.

Any woman who has no connection to the knowing of her soul would be a sad, sad creature. — Questioner

This is darn judgmental and indicative of a certain flavour of disdain for women who do not believe what you believe. They are not "sad, sad creatures". This is an ironically misogynistic thing to say. I acknowledge, wholehearted, the benefits of a spiritual dimension - but the kind of amorphous, ill-defined attempts at creating a poetic story about motherhood or the "woman's soul"(not your words) (I mean, are you suggesting something real there? It's hard to tell. If you're not this seems to be a bit of a lark) simply distract from practical matters in most cases.

But I also acknowledging that lacking it is simply rejecting one possible poetic route to self-actualization. Plenty of women get that through sexual submission or powerlifting, painting, flower crowns, raising dogs, making whiskey, being aestheticians or sculpting wood or anything at all (albeit, there are tendencies) - if all you mean to say is that all of these things put one in touch with their "soul" then that is trivial and not saying anything about mothers or women but I fully, entirely agree.

I have to say, I ran part of this by my wife and we both find "connection to the knowing of her soul" to be the type of woo-woo stuff that convinces people to buy Goop products. Which is to say not really saying anything. Although, as a little gem of agreement, I've had exactly that thought on Acid.

You totally don't get it. — Questioner

Or, you don't. Your very first reply was to attempt, via sexism, to disparage and perhaps invalidate my response. Tsk tsk. It could simply be that you don't have a great idea going on, right? I mean, I could not get it. Sure. But there's a distance between how you're approaching this (rhetoric) and how I'm approaching it (practicality). I simply responded to your OP.

Given that the vast, vast majority of our interactions have been you putting forward fictions for serious discussion (this isn't a challenge in and of itself - i've really enjoyed it in plenty of places) and fail to recognize where the delineation lies, it is not too surprising you get not much response to these threads. There is so much more to these discussions than the, apparent, ideological commitments you open these discussions with. It's usually not fun to pick up on such a strong, even if admirable, ideological bent and still go ahead and give opinions. They tend to be taken badly, as here.

"White liberal women are a cancer on the nation.” - right-wing comedian Vincent Oshana wrote on X. — Questioner

Yeah, I know hte trends although I'm not on X. That is par for the course, and in no-way partisan.

Seen things progressive women say about the "Tradwife"?? Usually, i'd give you an example. You could Google it. What I suggest you do first is look at a description of what Tradwives themselves adopt. Then look at the slew of disgustingly incorrect "expose" type pieces - usually blogger opinions pieces - that somehow go from "I like to make bread, blow my husband and take care of the kids" to "We're going to lead a fascist revolution and destroy black people".

Horrifically bad thinking on all sides.

This misses the OPs point. That is amorphous and unworkable as between value systems. Even within value systems, tolerance levels will have different responses coming to the same claims.

LOL. Let's say yes. Response to Questioner is probably apt too.

This post is brought you to by my life-long understanding of my own mother, my long-term partners including my wife (and a mother), my three closest mother friends, one of whom has twins, and then after off of this, my own thoughts and impression.

So it is with grave concern that I read about the womanosphere - a growing movement that puts women in the place allotted to them by white, Christian conservative men. It entreats women to abandon their humanity – “meant to turn women into creatures who never again trust the voice inside their own ribs.”

The womanosphere (created and controlled by white, conservative Christian men) – — Questioner

Don't approach communities by engaging their critics. That is absurd. Engage communities by engaging its members and its actual activities. I have engaged this specific community quite a bit through my wife's interest (interest - not inclination).

An example here, it seems to be suggesting that in Social Media, spaces by women, for women who are conservative, prefer traditional roles etc... are somehow subverting their rights and what not. That is absolute bullshit. Go and talk to those women. I often do, as does my wife. They're lovely, happy people who are certainly not oppressed in any sensible way - unless, of course, your bent is to assume that any one who submits even a smidgen of anything to anyone else must be a child incapable of taking care of herself against the big bad mean men in the comments (not to mention that blog is god-awful preening crap written by someone who likely thinks first-year creative writing courses set you up for a life of journalism - and has never stepped outside the clear, semi-aggressive ideological bubble they're in). They're mostly just women who enjoy typically feminine things and behaviours. There's nothing wrong with this.

Besides this,

Dr. Estés has created a new lexicon for describing the female psyche. Fertile and life-giving, it is a psychology of women in the truest sense, a knowing of the soul. — Questioner

This is exactly the kind of stuff that the vast majority of mothers dealing with real-world problems have no time for. They need to pay bills, fix illnesses, work jobs, deal with transport, birthday parties, fees, permissions, clothes, food, happiness.

Mothers need to raise their children. That's what a mother does. While I agree, there needs to be restrictions on any kind of coercion, oppression or enforcement of anything but plain responsibility on mothers, there also needs to not be totally misleading, unhelpful rhetoric floating about convincing young women we're living in the middle ages and we can create our living myths around our children. It's selfish and dumb. It's about the kids. Much to be said for men, obviously.

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks. — praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. This isn't something I picked up on as important. I responded to your sticking on it for so long. I saw the comment as i currently see it, more or less when I first saw the clip. Never seemed interesting. There's no contradiction in my responding to you banging on about a single thing he said one time which you misinterpreted.

As to the remainder, you've literally just done it again. I've addressed all of this, extremely clearly, and it is now pretty much unavoidable to conclude that you're just wanting to pain people certain ways, facts be damned. Again, thank you for remaining civil.

You've got a hell of a lot of work todo beyond what you're saying here. That's your inuition - and I get that. It is most people's intuition. That's probably the basis for most religion impulse. "We must be more than meat". But there is no real reason to think so. We appear to be sets of dispositions and behaviours. But there are no clear edges, no sufficient and necessary conditions etc..

Again, please get yourself across the discussions on the topic over the years. While its not good for a lot, AI will do a great job are summarizing competing theories. I highly, highly suggest this before looking to have the above comment analysed into nothingness.

Oysters and Sunlight Banno... Compare them if you must. I shall refrain.

But, if all perception is by introspection, how do we ever know that it is wrong? — Ludwig V

That's not quite what's being suggested here. All i was doing was putitng paid to a patent stupidity in this discussion - not suggesting there's an out-and-out solution. But i do note that the objections still just fall back on "well that's weird" or "I have a hard time talking that way". In any case, this is one of hte uncomfortable realities of, at least leaning, IR. How can we explain actual error in perception? You can't. You can discuss agreement, and statistical likelihood one has accurately reported the world around them. We can approximate to an extremely close degree, when this has occurred. We do not need direct access to objects for that system to work. It just means that one event which violates expectation in a certain way could up-end whatever we think is the underlying reason for thinking this (i.e, if it turns out objects we interpret as curved are actually angled in some odd way which human perpcetion interprets weirdly, or some other speculative fabulation).

Why can't I just say that I see the sun as it was eight minutes ago? — Ludwig V

You probably could. But that would be admitted that you're essentially looking at a pale imitation (although, pale seems entirely inapt here lmao). If that's the case, and there's a significant difference between seeing the Sun let's say from 200 miles away (impossible physically, but i'm sure you see where I'm going...) and from the Earth, then we need to get a grip on what that is. At any rate, we're having to admit (rather, we should, if being honest, admit) that there is an unavoidable chasm (in this case, physically as well as epistemically) between our object and the experience which presents it to us. Its awkward, but that's no reason to retreat into simplicity for comfort sake, imo.

I expect you mean that what we see is an image of the sun. — Ludwig V

More-or-less.

So I can only know that I'm seeing an image of the sun if I know what the sun looks like. — Ludwig V

What's the problem with that? Labels don't operate as apodictic reportage. "the Sun" can only possibly refer to that which humans, under normal circumstances, agree to call "the Sun". Whether this is eight-minute-old light or an "Actual" star so many millions of miles away isn't determinative. If humans are, as this seems to make clear, restricted to an experience of light reflected from the sun eight minutes ago, we can never be sure and that's fine.

Scrutinizing images will never tell me that. — Ludwig V

You're right. Which is why, to me, it seems an attempt to claim DRism is bound to fail, and everyone needs to just get comfortable with the fact that we don't experience an object, but light which is highly relevant to it.

I simply challenge the OP to come back in five years and acknowledge that nothing predicted here happened.

are no no-go areas as suggested by Trump — Punshhh

The problem with this is that I've seen several first-hand videos (i.e the person is in the situation themselves while filming, not following up some other person's claim) of Islamic groups literally roaming streets and accosting people for their garb, what they're eating, how their women are presented and behaving etc.. across the UK (so, no-go might be a bit far, but these videos generally result in criminal assaults from the groups trying to enforce Sharia). Of course you wont get some official statement confirming this - they, self-admittedly - ignored at least two long-term rape gangs in the UK for risk of "sounding racist". It cannot be taken at face value - but then, I can't use the videos i've seen as evidence of some widespread issue.
My point is that we need to be able to actually hear each on these instead of just making blanket claims like "there are no.." or "All x are..." etc.. I'm not someone who thinks "Immigrants are taking our jobs". But I do tend to see videos and take them for what they actually are, in the video, as I'm watching it. This cuts both ways. I also see plenty of horrific behaviour on the part of so-called "progressive" thinkers and protestors that are criminal, immoral and unacceptable. I don't then paint all progressive protesters are jobless louts.

Regarding “unhinged leftists”, there is no such thing, it’s possible there are a handful in a population of 65 million, but it really doesn’t exist (Unless you are referring to climate protesters). — Punshhh

We live in different worlds and I do not think you're adequately paying attention to the neutral point i'm making: You have no seen evidence to convince you of this. That is fine. I have slews of evidence of unhinged leftists carrying out assaults, property damage and behaviours that genuinely appear to be mental illness let loose. If you want to see it, I can give it to you.

If you are unwilling, that would confirm the hypothesis I've put forward:

There is also, though, hte issue of people being genuinely uninterested or maybe unwilling to look at contrary evidence — AmadeusD

Regarding extreme right wing violence, there is a fare amount, it just doesn’t make the news so much these days. Remember a member of parliament (Joe Cox) was murdered by them in 2016. — Punshhh

I would be more than happy to see the evidence for this. I currently am not aware of anything similar to what I'm talking about.

Regarding Joe Cox, an Islamic Extremist killed David Ames much more recently. It doesn't really matter to the point. We're not arguing facts here, we're talking about how people are so intensely unwillingly to see examples of their side being assholes.

While I think Questioner is making two classic mistakes (conflating correlation with causation and appeal to authority) I also think what you're saying isn't quite there yet. You need to be able to tell us what a person is before you can really make this objection. How could we find the boundaries?

PLenty of much, much smarter people than anyone on this forum have been at this for millennia. It's probably best to get across a lot of that - culminating, most importantly, I think, in "Reasons and Persons" by Derek Parfit. It is pushing toward 45 years old and hasn't really lost any flavour.

I take its conclusion: There is no such thing as a person, other than a conceptual comfort humans use to get on with things. There's nothing to be pointed out or drawn-out of the world to give us a necessary and sufficient description of a person.

So if you can approach this one, awesome. Otherwise, the objection isnt quite there yet imo.

Nothing here solves the problem. "Do unto others" is unworkable. Not everyone agrees with other's take on that. T Clark is being far, far too simplistic.

If mental processes are independent of neural processes then they ought to be unaffected by the relativity of velocities. If they are not independent of neural states then they ought to be affected. — Janus

This was my initial thought. But, funnily enough, I also went straight to psychedelic experience to note that this is perhaps simple illusion. That said, I can't see a way to litigate that. It's possible that if subjective experience isn't 1:1 eiwth neural activity that psychedelics invoke a similar effect to close-to-light-speed travel.

Some great thoughts here. On the delineation between many kinds of "beautiful" I can see several that are quite disparate:

A beautiful legal argument was the example, but one could say a beautiful proof. Its not visually or colloquially aesthetically pleasing, i wouldn't think. Certainly I do not find legal arguments (also my wheelhouse - sup boys) visually appealing. They are visually daunting and tend to get me groaning. But once i'm in it, understanding the nuances and seeing where it lands up, I get feelings very similar to the internal non-descripts of seeing a sunset which is striking.

But seeing the sunset is immediately pleasing. I didn't need to understand some underlying property of the "object" (for ease) whereas enjoying legal argument takes training, hard-work and a very keen eye for detail and inference. They seem to be two distinct natures of something which may psychologically end up being the same (i.e the ineffability, numinosity etc..) which we tend to call "beauty".

When it comes to other humans, I think that comes down to a mix of the two. What do you understand about your own desires? What have you learned whic affects them? In contrast, what aspect of a woman or man would be evolutionary advantageous to gun for? We are animals, after all, trying to fuck, mostly.

At least two distinct 'types' which operate differentl, and a possible chimeric third.

See. Impulse control of a toddler.

It is light data from eight minutes (roughly) ago. — AmadeusD

This part matters, Banno. When you cast your eyes to the Sun, you literally are not seeing the Sun. You're seeing light from the sun which is eight minutes old. Nothing interesting about this, except trying to get around it to say you're directly aware of hte Sun in any given moment. Just stupid.

Don't get sucked in. Dude cannot form a worth while response to anything. Just ad hominem. AS he's probably do when he sees this, proving my point. Feeding trolls is bad business.

:ok:

I extremely disagree, but that is also why we've been arguing for weeks.

This is why i said I think it's run its course. You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness, but could simply be wrong, and I'm understanding that you see things in ways I cannot fault, but I think are wrong. Can't see us getting further.

Earlier Presidents didn't have badly trained agents actively roaming the streets for possible illegal immigrants and stopping people who look to be foreigners. — ssu

They didn't need to (the badly trained part is arguable - they fucked up constantly under Obama particularly in terms of care-giving in custody).

to you walking on the street or driving home and your stopped by the border guard. — ssu

I do not see this the way you do. I would have absolutely no problem doing this in the midst of a crack down on illegal immigration. But yeah, I understand what you're saying now. Thank you.

I see, the Newman effect strikes again! :lol: — praxis

Err, no. What hte fuck dude... this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Either I or you (and likely me) misinterpreted video evidence of an event. Good god.

You do not need to hypotheticalise this: The Sun is not what we see when we look at the sun. It is light data from eight minutes (roughly) ago.

There's simply no way NOS4A2 thinks he's seeing the sun directly without making such an egregious error in almost every relevant domain as to perhaps think he's trolling. I wouldn't be surprised.

You just ignore the question. That's why it's repeated. If you continue to refuse to answer, you will either be pushed to answer, or you will be dismissed. There is some incredible ignorant in these responses, if we're not going to assume you're trolling. So dismissal seems most reasonable to save me time.

Are you arguing against genetic variability in humans? — Questioner

Please stop asking ridiculous questions of me about things I haven't said. Either respond to what I've actually said, or don't. But do not ask me about things I haven't said, or even intimated. Your description betrays what you claim she's said about the Amygdala:

There is no such thing as a "transitory state" of evolution. That is what evolution is. Her claim scientifically unsound, and used in support of an further unsound thesis about emotional regulation. She has no expertise or even training in the area. It doesn't make any sense.

Everything you've said supports my rejection of Elizabeth's claim (which you seemed to be happy with?). What a bizarre exchange.

Under typical conditions, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) connections with the amygdala are immature during childhood and become adult-like during adolescence. — Questioner

This is wholly irrelevant to the obviously false claim a blogger made.

I don't think it is romanticizing at all, but an investigation to better understand who we are as a species when the unnatural environment we live in has been peeled away. — Questioner

Well, it is. In this case, overtly.

ADmittedly, I already have my conclusion on his killing, so haven't bothered to look too far into it -you might be right, but both appeared to me present across both videos. Nothing turns on it, though. It would be good to focus on that.

I think that is somewhat wrong. Largely, because its predicated on the idea that because English doesn't carry specific, un-changing single word references to those various concepts, we don't really have them. That just seems patently wrong, to me.

I don't think there's any truck in the thesis. Its a bit romantic, at best.

She doesn't appear to have any background which would support taking her neuroscientific opinions seriously.

its being in a transitory state of evolution — Questioner

This is an extremely weird thing to claim. Evolution doesn't have stop-gaps. Organs which develop do so along evolutionary lines, and there isn't a valid way to claim what she is claiming. Its romantic language dressed up to be scientific.

Nevertheless - I think it is a valid observation that love is not approached by all cultures/traditions in the same way. For example, indigenous traditions tend to prioritize the communal over the individual. — Questioner

First, yes definitely - but only somewhat. The different concepts of love exist in various cultures - there is no sort of 1:0 relationship between those concepts that would have us saying "they see love differently". The West is actually highly predicated on community continuity and closeness along Christian lines. We just have too many people.

I think there's a bit of a tendency to romanticize past cultures coming into play here, resulting in ambiguous, scientifically unsound claims being made. But those societies lack in many ways and are not apt comparisons to multicultural, billion-person societies aimed at exploration, scientific understanding and technological advancement.

Yes, to you. And I understand that. It doesn't sound like anything particularly interesting to me. I also explained myself with reference to psychology, personal experience and the general set of values I would apply to the situation. We simply differ on those.

You don't care about plenty of things I find extremely important. I don't find those situations to be you expressing callousness - I find we have different values and operate along different sets of information which largely, isn't our faults.

Calling someone a name (an actual name, not an epithet) they don't like/want to be called is trivial. You disagree. That's fine.

Spitting on someone, or pushing them is assault or battery depending on circumstance. Again, this doesn't alter the ultimate outcome. It's just a matter of admitting that these people aren't saints, to be held as martyrs. That's true.
But it doens't take anything whatever away from the callous, horrific nature of his death

There is no justification for what we did in Vetnaum, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Cuba, Venezuela, and Greenland. — Athena

:grimace: :grimace:

I worry that romanticizing suffering drains victims of moral standing. — Truth Seeker

The modern problem.

Because both Biden and Obama did not go with it as Trump has done. — ssu

Hey bud - can you say what you mean here? I'm genuinely, semantically not understanding - Obama at least with highly motivated and animated about mass deportation, which was carried out, and in pretty shitty conditions. I don't want to wade into that, just giving context for why i just want to know what this specific thing is pointing out

I guess kicking off the tail lights warrants being executed by two agents firing multiple shots… — Christoffer

The man was murdered unjustly by ICE — NOS4A2

You can do much, much better than this, even being caught in a semi-delusional state. NOS4a2 says enough stupid, morally corrupt shit. to not do this...

Pretti assaulted federal agents? — praxis

Yes. It just doesn't matter. He was murdered, plain and simple (it was also like, 11 days earlier as I understand so likely totally irrelevant unless it was the same agent, and in that case, runs against the Agent).

How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie. — praxis

Yeah, that's absolutely true but we do not assume someone is lying at face value - in this case, particularly because he was clearly bent to believe shit that couldn't possibly be well supported. But, his beliefs are not my thing to comment on the motivations for, if you see what I mean.

I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well. — praxis

Of course; I am aware. That isn't what Kirk, or I was talking about. Man. This is getting tough.

Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.” — praxis

No. That is a purposeful activity. Something done directly to Kirk, including throughout your posts. Again, getting tough lol.

So you’re as callous as Kirk. — praxis

No. You just have an opinion derived from false understandings of what's been said, ignorance of my actual experience (which I've laid out) and ignorance of the views of plenty of trans people (the wrong kind of trans? LOL).

I think probably this has run it's course but thank you for remaining entirely civil these last few exchanges. Appreciate it.