Depends where you were brought up.

It is irrelevant. We are not living in a simulation. If you insist we are then there is only the simulation therefore the ‘simulation’ is in fact identical to ‘reality’.

The question is a basic error in reasoning.

Other questions that follow this dead end are ‘what is real?’ instead of simply addressing what we mean by ‘real’ and understanding that our understanding is necessarily limited. The limitation of our senses allows us to develop knowledge, as knowledge exists purely as a point of reference not as some irrefutable source all springs from.

I generally think people do not think too much. If there is a ‘modern’ issue it is likely more along the lines of ‘distraction’ that excessive thinking.

A problem I have heard from farmers is people buying up land cheap making it impossible for farmers to start up a business. This also effects the environment as the land can sit there without being maintained, farmers are forced into a corner where they have to specialise (further effecting soil quality and pest control).

I think a lot could be done in terms of allowing people to buy up land in order to start farming and restrictions in place that force crop rotation rather than relying so heavily on fertilisers and such.

Of course this is just one area of the economy. In other areas of industry there does seem to be a common pattern of monopolies currently squeezing out the little fellows.

In this case the efficiency of ‘specialising’ can actually harm the environment even though the yield is better overall. Sometimes producing less is actually more. This is going to be hard to alter without new laws though.

In the broader sense of the OP there is interest for everyone in how roles in society have changed. A lot of this came more readily into focus in the west due to WW2 and women taking on the role of ‘men’ in the workplace. Further events and technologies have certainly shook up different societies to different degrees. There is also the historical narrative of Christianity surrounding the issue of sexual orientation and the ‘family unit’ (being a industrial idea) also playing a part.

Did you know the term ‘gay’ comes from women who were prostitutes in the US? They were called ‘Gay Women’ … then when men got involved in the trade they were called ‘Gay Men’. I find things like that interesting :)

Most of the talk in this area is generally pointless because it is full of political nonsense.

If someone clearly wishes to be treated as a man/boy/woman/girl then that is fine. I do not care about their ‘junk’ nor their sexual orientation.

Exceptions: Sharing prisons with opposite sex and competing against the opposite sex in physically demanding sports.

It really isn’t massively complicated it is just that some loud minority wishes to shout for or against some item the vast majority likely do not care about.

Nah! It is just a very crass generalisation that does nothing to progress any reasonable discussion … that was probably the point of Mr. Smith’s comment (that or plain stupidity/laziness).

I need to think about this whole subject more. Seems like a decade is not enough :D

Perhaps with my current attempts I will refine my thoughts better soon if I remain focused on this subject alone.

I am not entirely convinced there is a ‘why’ of doing so. This may sound bizarre but I just have a niggling sense that whatever function/role a Ritual plays in our lives it is essentially a creative force rather than one made of pure intent. In the sense that producing a piece of artwork is an expression of humanity, yet a Ritual is more like an attempt at being a hierophant (the ‘translator’) and just occupying the space of ‘translations’ rather than actively mediating between ‘self’ and ‘world’ … if that makes sense?

That is hardly equivalent. Humans can be male and female. Humans, as far as I know, have never been big-nosed monkeys.

It is common enough for people to believe they look or sound a certain way when they do not. I have never heard of anyone insisting they were a monkey … because if they did their insistence would prove them wrong (monkeys do not argue).

From that approach, economic activity should be aimed at maintaining or increasing the regenerative capabilities of our environments, making nature flourish, in order to reach actual material growth. — Benkei

Yes. The key terms here being ‘aimed at’ rather than immediately implemented at all costs.

The issue is people have to get out of severe poverty prior to such a ‘caretaker’ role becomes non-detrimental. Meaning using resources passed the point where the environment ‘looses out’ in the short term is likely necessary in order to get people out of poverty - ie. Cheaper energy to allow people to flourish more easily.

It is clearly a double-edged sword though! The environment can, and does recover. The worry is more or less how much damage it can sustain alongside how much damage those in poverty will inflict upon their immediate environment simply to survive another day.

As for eudaimonia my understanding is that it builds upon Socrates “an unexplored life is not worth living” … that is a Philosophical life is really what is meant by ‘eudaimonia. Not merely some ‘pursuit of happiness’ nor some ‘end goal’. The beauty (or kalos) of life is in the struggle rather than in the discovery. This reminds me of how one of our resident antinatalists spoke as if having to ‘work’ and ‘suffer’ were somehow abhorrent. The kalos of life for me is precisely in that that many wish to avoid, and in many cases they have good reason to be fearful of ‘suffering’ for nothing because they will suffer for nothing if they expect some reward or gift. The ‘work’/suffering is where the focus of our attention should probably lie.

Anyway, that is my ramble :D

In short, it is ‘inbuilt’ but that is not to say nurture is thrown out completely.

I say this because we are social beings and our success comes through cooperation and interaction. Without a similar guiding ‘moral disposition’ - we shall call it - among individuals we would struggle to function in social groups.

Such qualities are not unique to humans though yet our level of complexity is something quite different probably due to our ability to hold multiple narratives in our head at once giving us a complex theory of ’minds’, rather than just ‘mind’.

Note: Such a ‘moral disposition’ is fairly nebulous in form. Meaning different cultures will apply different weight to different ‘virtues and vices’ yet overall there is the undeniable common physical feature of empathy.

I am starting to agree. I thought he was talking about our experience of time not some garbled rubbish that is neither physics nor philosophy.

The trouble with Berkely and Kant is that they wanted to eliminate space to get rid of materialism to save religion. — val p miranda

Nonsense.

For remote tribes they do not have a concept of time (well not like us). We have learnt, been nurtured to, segment time and parcel up our day into neat little measured packages. This is not really the same as our subjective experience of time though yet we have been conditioned to view our measurement of time as the origin of our subjective experiences … where in fact if is the other way around.

Given that we have advanced our civilisation due to segmenting time and measuring it it is clear there is a benefit to stretching our temporal appreciation.

Just ask yourself if it is more likely that a teapot is orbiting Mars. This seems at least physically feasible whereas when it comes to psychic powers there is no feasible mechanism known by which to gather evidence.

If such phenomena can be actively observed and recorded enough then a mechanism can be uncovered. Should we be concerned with hypothesising about how a cat paint a picture that is indistinguishable from a work of Salvador Dali? I don’t think so … but you could argue that no cat has claimed they can.

This basically comes down to people believing the impossible. Humans are incredible in that we can sometimes pull of the seemingly impossible.

Time and space can be viewed physically or psychologically.

Psychological time is far more varied and malleable. What feels like a day for one person can feel like a few hours for another. The very lingual articulation of time transforms our experience. Our world becomes a set of appointments and zones; for eating, sleeping, working etc.,.

Space is the same. It is likely that our appreciation of time comes about due to spatial association (psychologically speaking).

Of course different people can be more absorbed in some ritual than others. Take the Sunday Roast. Some may just take it as a meal, whilst another will focus deeply on the experience and actions involved and imbue meaning/purpose on the social gathering.

Need a ritual be social? Absolutely not. I can concoct and perform some ritual personal to me that no one else need ever know about.

When I say rituals are not ‘lenses’ I mean they are not aimed at viewing the environment in some way or another. This is not to say they can or cannot be carried out with other people.

In short I class a ritual as something disassociated from the weltanschauung. A ceremony would be something that had passed over from ritual into the social sphere I image.

I would still maintain that a ‘ritual’ is not about viewing the world. I would also say that it is possible for it to be shared.

I am a bit suspicious of calling every social interaction a ‘ritual’ for the reason I mentioned above (ie. Viewing everything as ‘Art’). I think that is just a lens we can use whereas a ‘ritual’ is not really about viewing the world.

The comeback then would be are all social interactions a ‘lenses’ for viewing the world? Is it a ‘ritual’ when I meet someone? Is shaking hands a ‘ritual’? Is a cultural custom (like hand shaking) the same thing as a ‘ritual’?

I am not convinced ‘customs’ are the same thing as rituals. For instance, the most common signal people give around the world to someone is more or less an instinct - it that common! Just curious if anyone actually knows what it is … it is that common it is probably not something that springs to mind, something we do unconsciously.

Is a Sunday Roast necessarily a ‘ritual’ or a cultural custom? Can a cultural custom be a ritual on some level as well? I see no reason why any act cannot be a “ritual” but not every act is … what is it that makes a “ritual” a “ritual” rather thanjust some episode in time. I would say I am getting closer by looking away from mere ‘lenses’ and ‘perspectives’ referring to lived world. By this I mean a “ritual” must be some item ‘set apart from’ the world in some manner.

Well, this is a topic that has had my attention on an doff for decades. It is (as was pointed out above) a major question in anthropology.

One approach I like to take is to view concepts and ideas as items expressing human nature (as primarily temporal beings). By this garbled language I simply mean I find it interesting to view Instinct, Habit and Ritual on a temporal basis.

Instinct has no ‘temporal’ basis as it is not a conscious item for, nor a key feature of, conscious awareness in our ability to segment time.

Habit is something that is of an idealised nature and sets into motion goals that parallel Instincts and/or veer away from them based on wants and needs.

Ritual … I actually think the term is more or less a group of quite varied items.

As stands I have these five items.

1) Perception : Visualising
2) Thought : Articulating
3) Realisation : Acting Out
4) Reversal : Analysing
5) Development : Inventing

The danger going down this road is starting to refer to literally everything as a “ritual” just like some state that “everything is art!” Or some such nonsense. The difference here being I do not see “rituals” as perspectives one can hold to (like one can view the world through the lens of Art) but as something that absconds from any lens gazing in favour of developing an abstract world.

I am not sure that “rituals” need to have a set purpose either. Maybe it is that some forms of “rituals” are more about exploring purpose and/or imbuing purpose by selecting some segment of time and addressing it by Visualising, Articulating, Acting Out, Analysing or Inventing.

A lot of this does tie into several other areas but I think that is a broad enough outline of my thoughts on “ritual” for now.

I have noticed plenty of people declaring something as a ‘ritual’ yet declaring this does not really pin point what differentiates a ritual from other things. I think it is not merely a superstitious behaviour nor has to possess any hint of superstition to it either.

You are not making a whole lot of sense here. If there is no data presented you are just voicing your opinion.

I do not think for a second that the numbers (by percentage) is growing at all. Such members in western society have been forced into hiding due to various factors including religious dogma and lack of a figurehead through which to relate themselves to the mainstream norms of sexual behaviour and attitudes in society.

I always like to use the example of the Philippines here when it comes to transgenders. It is a normal thing over there and has been for a long time. I practically every fastfood chain there is someone who is transgender working there and it has been like that for a long time.

Okay. Makes sense. I haven’t thought that far back for a longtime in regards to childhood crushes … I guess it was possible I had crushes too that far back :)

Homosexuality is clearly not an ‘evolutionary dead end’ because it occurs in many species and has not disappeared for millions of years.

My question was not really one I expected to be answered because the data sets are too tricky I reckon. If you know of a study that measures the Big Five for gays, lesbians and bisexuals I’d be interested to look at the data.

How on earth can you realise you are bisexual at 5 yrs old? That makes no sense to me whatsoever so I am assuming you meant something else maybe?

Thank you for some well presented clear examples.

I would be very interested to hear how you equate these with ‘habits’ and ‘instincts’. Does one act as the seed of the others? Are they all effectively the same animal? That kinda thang. :)

What about non-religious ‘rituals’?

Women, on average, are considerably physically weaker than men and shorter than men. These physical factors are quite a difference (ie. A man can potentially kill with a few blows whereas a woman has very little chance of doing so in comparison).

Other than that the psychological differences that are most widely known (by anyone who has studied an ounce of psychology) is from the Big Five psychological traits. Women are higher in ‘Neuroticism’ and ‘Agreeableness’. Men are more likely to be aggressive too and the chance of someone with extremely high/low IQ being male is higher than them being female (this later ‘fact’ is not exactly hard cast though but the evidence available does appear to point to this).

Also, some homosexual women are more masculine than feminine and some homosexual men are more feminine than masculine … what I am curious about is whether or not there is any connection between more ‘feminine’/‘masculine’ psychological traits and sexual prefer and/or ‘gender identity’?

If most people were to make a guess I assume they would expect homosexual men to be some degree more likely to exhibit psychological trait patterning associated with women, or that transgender people (not on any hormonal treatment) would also lean, psychologically speaking, toward their ‘gender identity’. Such things may just be too difficult to assess atm though given that psychological studies require huge data sets over a pretty large time period.

One thing is for sure atm. There are people out there (a minority on both ‘sides’) that are actively - yet maybe unconsciously) doing nothing much more than hindering progression and understanding by using the subject as a means to propel other ideas/feelings.

They have numerous things in common. So what?

Sex is biological. Many people have used gender and sex synonymously for decades.

I do believe sexual preferences can change simply because my attraction to people has changed. At the same time it seems kind of obvious to me that we are born with certain sexual preferences.

I do not think there is much to understand. Some people are different to others so they are often treated different due to ignorance. The political movement is an attempt to right wrongs but as with any political movement there is greed for power and a certain stirring of ‘us against them’ internally and externally.

Deleted post (got confused between who posted what!)

@Tate Not completely related but think you will enjoy. Sapolsky is a brilliant speaker (thanks for reminding me he exists):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vspqIbrzGXU

This is backwards. Women are the ones who select mates above men. Again, this is well known.

Compared to most other apes this is pretty common knowledge. It is not just me saying it.

Sapolsky refers to humans as ‘the confused ape’ because we are not one thing or another. We are ape-like in some ways but not in many others.

Probably because males are not that much strong (nor different) from women compared to other apes.

In my sin bin for a month. Bye bye.

You will get no response from me again until mid-October.

An empirical claim is a philosophical claim nitwit.

Your OP is fine. Ignore those looking to smear you rather than offer any kind of constructive criticism.

‘Religious believers’ do not deserve any kind of special respect above others.

It is a fairly reasonable point. Seeing a woman wearing a trouser suit is not exactly ‘confusing’ to any kids imo.

The whole ‘gender’ narrative atm is simply about a minority of people being heard. It will undoubtedly tip over the edge but that is just the how complex society calibrates.

You are right about Japan. In more extreme ‘liberal’ eyes there is little to admire compared to western cultures when it comes to individual freedom. Perhaps it is their different attitudes to sex that makes them appear more ‘liberal’ to some?

If a major concern of yours is the roles of men and women in modern society then I would say that is more than justified … I just do not see this having that much to do with gay or trans activists though. The main problem is societies adjusting to the liberation of women and with how women are perceived or how they believe they should be perceived among themselves and in relation to men too.

It does not take a great deal of delving into history to see how women have often been sidelined by men. A lot of it is mostly about being respected and valued. A problem I have observed from afar (referring to the US) is the problem of equating monetary success with personal value.

A number of feminists are against other types of feminists because they believe that their namesakes are actually anti-feminism because instead of being strong women they replicate what is masculine and dismiss their feminine qualities (the whole shoulder pad fashions of the 80’s are an example of women ‘masculising’ themselves and competing with men on male terms). I do not think women should not be more masculine though, but there is something to be said for the assumption that ALL women should or can be like this … it is still in the early stages though.

So your concern is that people will not be as white? Not quite sure how that ties into cultural traditions at all tbh.

Personally I am expecting the very idea of ‘nation’ and ‘patriotism’ to slowly erode into the next century. I think we’re entering something similar to what Nietzsche talked about with “God is dead” but we’re now facing “The Nation is dead” problem … it is just that many cannot see it yet and those that can have no idea what will happen once it takes a firm hold.

Why are you lumping Brasil and the US together? They share little in common other than Brasil having a much more tarnished history in terms of slavery.

Note: Every country has quotas and standards for immigrants.