This takes us back to the main discussion here. The dominant, influential individual will always value certainty above all, and view any uncertainty that inevitably persists in his choice of actions as overwhelmingly negative. The life of our lonely savage is attractive to him: no one questions his decisions or points out conflicting, alternative or unsettling information. Ignorance is bliss. An individual’s social connections and collaboration increase the uncertainty of his autonomy, dominance and influence. He is more aware of the universe, but less certain of his individual position in relation to it. — Possibility

Very nicely said. Any thoughts on how we shifted from turning to our earth mother for sustenance and comfort to the a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God?

If we remove this culturally arbitrary distinction, we are on par with our lonely savage. If you doubt that, you might as well think that psychology can’t be practiced cross-culturally and theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race.
— Congau

I agree that ignoring the distinction puts us on par with the lonely savage - but that doesn’t improve our understanding of truth - it only reduces it. I DO think that psychology can’t be practiced with the same accuracy cross-culturally, and that cultural differences should always be taken into account when making decisions globally for the human race. — Possibility

Wow, that is an interesting argument- "theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race". A main reason for starting this thread is I do not believe it is human nature to war. There are peaceful cultures proving it is culture, not our nature, that leads to war.

— I like sushi

I forgot my main reason for arguing why I do not believe matriarchies would develop technology. When reading different creation stories it became evident that those with developed technology began with a creation story of male gods killing each other, and killing mankind, not a mother goddess who gives life and nurtures it. There appears to be a link between those creation stories war and technological advancement or living cooperatively and not developing technology.

Not really. I don’t know of any matriarchal societies full stop - at least not on a scale that would compare to a ‘civilization’.

Testosterone is apparently linked to an explorative function. There are more men with low IQ’s than women, and more men with higher IQ’s than women - it’s far from hard evidence though because it depends on interests and societal expectations and individual choices.

Hypothetically if women were physically stronger than men, but otherwise the same, I still think civilization would have advanced in pretty much the same manner it has (men and women are far more alike than different compared to literally every other primate).

The burden of pregnancy and child birth is by far the biggest difference. Other than that it’s just brute strength (which it not necessarily a tool of oppression or war; yet undeniably came into play during the birth of inequality).

Many, many people have written, studied and researched about how humans developed technologies. Technology accelerated as we found better means of storing and distributing knowledge.

I forgot my main reason for arguing why I do not believe matriarchies would develop technology. When reading different creation stories it became evident that those with developed technology began with a creation story of male gods killing each other, and killing mankind, not a mother goddess who gives life and nurtures it. There appears to be a link between those creation stories war and technological advancement or living cooperatively and not developing technology. — Athena

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from mythological references. The big step was sedentary life.

Different people, different cultural circumstances, different material circumstances etc. make a difference for how knowledge is approached or what kind of knowledge is valued, but it doesn’t affect the truth. The truth is there whether or not anyone knows it/believes it to be true. In different environments people will approach different truths, or value different truths. The savage is oblivious to rare stamp collections and the city dweller doesn’t care about rabbit tracks, but both the stamps and the tracks represent facts – are truths.

The practical mind values certainty, but the curious mind is attracted to uncertainty. Both types are probably represented both among “savages” and civilized people, but even if you are right that the lonely savage is overwhelmingly practical, it only reveals his approach to learning and says nothing about what there is to be learned – that is, truth.

The diversity of human culture and ideology reflects the perceived potential of humanity’s interaction with the universe. To exclude this information from how we interact with the world is to limit the accuracy of our predictions, including its uncertainty — Possibility

All information is truth and of course nothing should be a priori excluded. Truths about human interactions, that is social science, anthropology etc. are certainly important objects of study for the reasons you mention as well as others.

The way we go about facts (truths) doesn’t change the facts, but it does create new facts (facts about our behavior).


Are we interfering with the women's issues here? Maybe it would be a good idea to switch thread.

↪Athena Not really. I don’t know of any matriarchal societies full stop - at least not on a scale that would compare to a ‘civilization’.

Testosterone is apparently linked to an explorative function. There are more men with low IQ’s than women, and more men with higher IQ’s than women - it’s far from hard evidence though because it depends on interests and societal expectations and individual choices.

Hypothetically if women were physically stronger than men, but otherwise the same, I still think civilization would have advanced in pretty much the same manner it has (men and women are far more alike than different compared to literally every other primate).

The burden of pregnancy and child birth is by far the biggest difference. Other than that it’s just brute strength (which it not necessarily a tool of oppression or war; yet undeniably came into play during the birth of inequality). — I like sushi

I want to be sure you noticed I said there is a relationship between creation stories, gender dominance, and technological advancement or lack of it. Obviously our creation stories justify our choices and visa versa they tell us what our choices are. The Greek gods most certainly begin with a jealous father and a mother who just wanted her children to live and then a war between the generations of gods.

The Egyptian goddess Nut is curious to me because she did not intervene as a mother should when her children misbehaved. Unlike the male gods that kill humans and do punish.

While we have a lady of justice she holds scales because justice is weighed with wisdom and compassion, that is not exactly the power behind law and order, which begins with a male God doesn't it?

I see you have distinguished between a society and a civilization. I had this difference in mind and fall back on the God who does enforce law and order and mother goddesses and the lady of justice who were not the force behind law and order. This is sort of which came first- male dominance or civilization as distinctly different from a small society?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from mythological references. The big step was sedentary life. — I like sushi

You make me think and I am loving this.

Did north American natives live in societies or civilizations? Was the confederation of the North East natives comparable to the Aztec civilization? I think there were many farming communities that were sedentary but not civilizations. I think there is a technological difference between a stable farming community and a civilization?

I want to be sure you noticed I said there is a relationship between creation stories, gender dominance, and technological advancement or lack of it. — Athena

I don’t see any evidence - at least you haven’t presented any. If we’re talking purely about mythos there are enough instances of goddesses giving knowledge to humans to make your claim a questionable one.

There were huge civilizations across the americas. Disease wiped them off the face of the planet. I thought you were talking about the transition to sedentary life? Technology came hand in hand with changing to day-to-day living. Larger populations survived by storing information - hence the use of quippos in the Incan empire. In Australia and Africa there is some theories surrounding mnemonic techniques and ritual as means of passing information on.

Cannot for the life of me recall the name of the woman who makes a case for that - I’ll look it up tomorrow.

Neither conflict nor cooperation alone beget technological advancements. I cannot imagine a matriarchal society to have ever existed - in the sense of female domination - because men would just just say ‘no thanks’ when they disagreed and the women could do what? Nothing.

An egalitarian society in the past? Sure! There is evidence of this today in hunter gatherers and suggestions of large settlements in the Ukraine that were recently discovered where there doesn’t appear to be any tell tale signs of a ruling body.

I’d recommend looking at Renfrew. He’s a pretty solid source, but I’ve no idea if he’s focused on gender roles in any of his research papers.

Wow, that is an interesting argument- "theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race". A main reason for starting this thread is I do not believe it is human nature to war. There are peaceful cultures proving it is culture, not our nature, that leads to war. — Athena

Well, I’d warn that the existence of peaceful cultures is not a convincing argument against the capacity for war being part of our ‘nature’ - only that the capacity for peace is part of our nature as well. My main argument here is that in entertaining both capacities simultaneously and without judgement (moral, logical, rational or otherwise), we perceive a more objective truth about our ‘nature’.

Any thoughts on how we shifted from turning to our earth mother for sustenance and comfort to the a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God? — Athena

First of all, I don’t think this is so much a temporal shift as a value shift. We still turn to the earth for sustenance and comfort. But the reality is that our ‘earth mother’ isn’t focused on our individual or human sustenance and comfort, but on the general sustainability of all creation - often at our expense. This conflicts with an organic awareness of the individual ‘self’ as highest value, as evidenced by interoception of affect within the organism: prediction error, understood as suffering.

In developing an understanding of our relationship with the world, we have throughout history and culture been torn between accepting that we are an integral but ultimately expendable part of a self-sustaining universe, and entering into a dialogue/conflict with a separate entity that is ultimately more dominant, autonomous and influential than ourselves. The interesting result of this is that, while the experience of men points them towards dialogue/conflict, the position of women - whose experience points them towards interconnectedness - must then be accounted for within this dialogue/conflict: absorbed into the identity of the ‘earth mother’ or of ‘mankind’.

Different people, different cultural circumstances, different material circumstances etc. make a difference for how knowledge is approached or what kind of knowledge is valued, but it doesn’t affect the truth. The truth is there whether or not anyone knows it/believes it to be true. In different environments people will approach different truths, or value different truths. The savage is oblivious to rare stamp collections and the city dweller doesn’t care about rabbit tracks, but both the stamps and the tracks represent facts – are truths.

The practical mind values certainty, but the curious mind is attracted to uncertainty. Both types are probably represented both among “savages” and civilized people, but even if you are right that the lonely savage is overwhelmingly practical, it only reveals his approach to learning and says nothing about what there is to be learned – that is, truth. — Congau

I want to be clear here that I’ve been referring to the particular ‘lonely savage’ in the thought experiment you proposed, who hypothetically has zero opportunity to communicate, connect or collaborate in any way with alternative experiences. In reality, all humans have had this opportunity at some stage in their lives. I believe that even the most practical human mind can develop their curiosity, and learn to value uncertainty.

I also want to clarify another point. When you say ‘the truth’, I believe that you’re referring to only what actually exists in this moment, rather than what information exists. Awareness of, connection to and collaboration with different people, cultural and material circumstances, etc don’t affect what actually exists in this moment, but always affects how we relate to what actually exists - which affects what may actually exist in the next moment. Likewise, our ignorance, isolation or exclusion of different cultural and material circumstances, etc also affects (in a different way) how we interact with what actually exists, which affects what may actually exist in the next moment.

So, while I agree and sympathise with your assertion of what actually exists as ‘the truth’ in an isolated three-dimensional ‘slice’ of time, I disagree that this is an accurate and therefore practical description of objective truth. We cannot accurately define what actually exists as separate from this moment’s relation to both the past and the future, relative to our own awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion of the potential/value and possibility/meaning of surrounding circumstances. We are unable to consciously act on ‘the truth’ without integrating potential information in relation to our understanding of what matters: knowledge, belief, intention, desire, obligation, logic, etc. In fact, I would argue that if ‘objective truth’ is inclusive of consciousness and meaning (if they are there whether or not anyone knows what they are), then it must be inclusive of potential and possible information.

Consciousness and meaning (what people take something to mean) are also objective information that exists even though it is difficult or impossible to access it. No one knows what Peter is thinking right now and he himself may be confused about the meaning of his thoughts, but they are there and could theoretically be known, for example if telepathy were possible (Is that what you mean by potential information?) His thoughts are just more truths, more pieces of information about items existing in the world. If that is what you mean, we are in agreement, but I definitely object to any suggestion of Peter’s thoughts affecting truths that are foreign to them. His actions, yes, certainly, but not his mere thoughts.

Conventions are shared meaning, I grant you that. They are not foreign to thought but identical to collective thought. Word have their meaning because enough people think they have that meaning, and when enough people change their mind about words, their meaning will change too. Culture, being collective habits, is also dependent on thought or shared meaning. But as objects of study, ideas are objective facts, and the student of ideas cannot change their meaning without making a mistake.

I don’t see any evidence - at least you haven’t presented any. If we’re talking purely about mythos there are enough instances of goddesses giving knowledge to humans to make your claim a questionable one. — I like sushi

Very good point of argument. What kind of knowledge? I would like to search for answers so do you have any mythologies in mind that I might read? I know often goddesses are said to be wise but wisdom and technology are separate things. I think today we are technologically smart but not wise.

Well, I’d warn that the existence of peaceful cultures is not a convincing argument against the capacity for war being part of our ‘nature’ - only that the capacity for peace is part of our nature as well. My main argument here is that in entertaining both capacities simultaneously and without judgement (moral, logical, rational or otherwise), we perceive a more objective truth about our ‘nature’. — Possibility

You make me think. You are right about avoiding judgments. I don't doubt it is natural for humans to raid each other but others have questioned if today's warfare is a natural thing. Genghis Khan and his followers were hunters without an agrarian consciousness and hunting is natural to us, and they stayed away from home for a long time. I guess it doesn't really matter what is being killed.

One study observed if children are treated abusively from infancy, they grew up to be strong warriors, So upon examination of info in my head, I guess I do have to conclude you are right and I was being a bit romantic.

First of all, I don’t think this is so much a temporal shift as a value shift. We still turn to the earth for sustenance and comfort. But the reality is that our ‘earth mother’ isn’t focused on our individual or human sustenance and comfort, but on the general sustainability of all creation - often at our expense. This conflicts with an organic awareness of the individual ‘self’ as highest value, as evidenced by interoception of affect within the organism: prediction error, understood as suffering. — Possibility

That triggers the memory that perhaps our egocentric thinking is not common to all people. Some cultures have a stronger communal identity so that when there is a gathering each one thinks about what everyone is doing together, not "I am doing this right". I think there is something about being competitive or cooperative in this. True as you say this is about how we value ourselves, and that happens in a culture. It seems to for the last several decades the focus has been on competitiveness, but old textbooks in the US focused on being cooperative and sharing. This shift came with establishing the Military-Industrial Complex.

In developing an understanding of our relationship with the world, we have throughout history and culture been torn between accepting that we are an integral but ultimately expendable part of a self-sustaining universe, and entering into a dialogue/conflict with a separate entity that is ultimately more dominant, autonomous and influential than ourselves. The interesting result of this is that, while the experience of men points them towards dialogue/conflict, the position of women - whose experience points them towards interconnectedness - must then be accounted for within this dialogue/conflict: absorbed into the identity of the ‘earth mother’ or of ‘mankind’. — Possibility

OMG that statement is so exciting to me. For me what you said is science versus religion. It is also Daniel Kahneman's fast and slow thinking with the fast-thinking being common to all of us, and slow thinking, pondering what is so, is less common to us and some people totally avoid it. Liberal education developed slow thinking, education for technology does not, and the result of replacing our liberal education in the US with education for technology is the social/ economic/political mess we are in now.

I love your definition of the male/ female difference and mention that this difference is based on a division of labor. The traditional division of labor shaping our experience of life and self-esteem and a sense of personal power. Are we dependent or independent? What an incredible mix of concepts that make soups of many flavors out of basically the same concepts. I think this influences our left and right politics and the political crisis in the US we are experiencing. It also takes very special people to maintain this discussion. People here are not thinking in terms of black and white, but acknowledge all the shades of grey.

I will be gone for awhile. I am making masks for the homeless. They can not get on the bus without a mask. And a couple of nurses left Oregon to work in New York for a while and they need something to cover their hair. Reality is the priority at the moment. I love you all.

Consciousness and meaning (what people take something to mean) are also objective information that exists even though it is difficult or impossible to access it. No one knows what Peter is thinking right now and he himself may be confused about the meaning of his thoughts, but they are there and could theoretically be known, for example if telepathy were possible (Is that what you mean by potential information?) His thoughts are just more truths, more pieces of information about items existing in the world. If that is what you mean, we are in agreement, but I definitely object to any suggestion of Peter’s thoughts affecting truths that are foreign to them. His actions, yes, certainly, but not his mere thoughts. — Congau

I am fascinated by the way you process this and challenge my perspective. Yes, I think we are closer in understanding here, sort of. If your actions pertain only to yourself as an isolated individual, then it would be easy to disregard Peter’s unknown thoughts as irrelevant to your understanding of what the truth is regarding your potential to act. But if you recognise that there is potential information available to you regarding Peter’s thoughts (however uncertain), and that your potential actions are not isolated events in the world, but would matter to Peter as well as yourself, then you would relate the potential information available regarding Peter’s thoughts to your potential to act, prior to determining and initiating your actions.

I’m not talking about telepathy as such, but the assumptions that we make subconsciously everyday when we interact with the world through concepts. When you say that no one knows what Peter is thinking, that doesn’t mean that no one is making assumptions about those thoughts and acting on them - Peter included. When you talk about how you think and process objective truth as a conscious act, you invariably leave this part of it out, but we all do it, whether or not we are aware of it. We need to be more aware of this inevitable uncertainty in the information we base our actions on, both before and after we act.

You see, I don’t believe anyone (except perhaps those with autism) processes objective truth as simply as the ‘lonely savage’ - although some like to think that they do. As humans, our actions are always determined in relation to this perceived potential/value, most of which we relate to subconsciously. But we have the potential to be more conscious of it, if we consider it valuable.

This is where we differ. You seem to think that we discard this uncertain information as irrelevant prior to determining our actions, but my understanding is that we integrate this information into who we are - into our individual will or potential to act - prior to determining our actions. We position ourselves in relation to the world according to meaning and value, as well as time, space, direction and energy, with every interaction.

Conventions are shared meaning, I grant you that. They are not foreign to thought but identical to collective thought. Word have their meaning because enough people think they have that meaning, and when enough people change their mind about words, their meaning will change too. Culture, being collective habits, is also dependent on thought or shared meaning. But as objects of study, ideas are objective facts, and the student of ideas cannot change their meaning without making a mistake. — Congau

What you’re talking about here - conventions, collective habits and facts - is probability. We make mistakes, wrong assumptions and prediction errors every day. This is how we learn. As objects of study, ideas only point to objective truth. The student of ideas cannot approach truth in meaning without making a mistake, and being willing to explore the differences between what people think words mean, and how that relates to differences in subjective experiences, value systems and perceived potential.

I have never denied that we approach facts/truths in different ways depending on our circumstances. We value different kinds of information according to what strikes us as useful or just interesting and our actions are determined by what information we have or imagine we have. What we think others think is one piece of information (very often false) that we process and act upon.

But all this doesn’t change the facts that are already there, that have already been produced. What Peter thought about yesterday at noon, not to mention on this date last year, is an absolute fact, now forgotten and inaccessible but if you still try to guess what it was, that guess will have a definite truth value (true, false, partly true). Your thinking about Peter’s past thinking will not change it in any way. A fact remains a fact and truth is absolute.

The future holds facts not yet produced, so of course we can change what will come, and human contact, including guesses about their past thinking, does indeed play a role in our production of new facts. But the facts that are already produced are unalterable and therefore “out there”. (That is even true about my own thinking whatever I think about it now.)

Artemis and Demeter spring to mind. Or you could just look at the hindu pantheon of gods/goddesses - they often switch forms from male to female so that pretty much covers everything.

Lynne Kelly was the name I couldn’t recall - ironic considering the point was about memory systems! Haha!

I think there is something about being competitive or cooperative in this. True as you say this is about how we value ourselves, and that happens in a culture. It seems to for the last several decades the focus has been on competitiveness, but old textbooks in the US focused on being cooperative and sharing. — Athena

Competitiveness doesn’t have to be about individual or even group-oriented domination and conflict, or about the influence of power, money or accolades. There is a deep connection between competition and cooperation that is too often ignored with particle thinking: the capacity we have to create shared meaning and possibility from an interaction of different, even opposing, perspectives. What drives us to maximise our potential and achieve more from healthy, sustainable competition is a focus on awareness, connection and collaboration, rather than individual domination and exclusion. Competitiveness isn’t about winning or losing, after all.

But all this doesn’t change the facts that are already there, that have already been produced. What Peter thought about yesterday at noon, not to mention on this date last year, is an absolute fact, now forgotten and inaccessible but if you still try to guess what it was, that guess will have a definite truth value (true, false, partly true). Your thinking about Peter’s past thinking will not change it in any way. A fact remains a fact and truth is absolute.

The future holds facts not yet produced, so of course we can change what will come, and human contact, including guesses about their past thinking, does indeed play a role in our production of new facts. But the facts that are already produced are unalterable and therefore “out there”. (That is even true about my own thinking whatever I think about it now.) — Congau

This I disagree with. That Peter had a thought yesterday at noon may be a fact, but the contents of that thought is potential information. There is no actuality to a thought except the event of thinking. You even said yourself that Peter may be just as uncertain about his thoughts as anyone else.

↪Athena Artemis and Demeter spring to mind. Or you could just look at the hindu pantheon of gods/goddesses - they often switch forms from male to female so that pretty much covers everything. — I like sushi

Athena wasn't a mother. She took responsibility for Hephaestus' child but stuck it in a box and left someone else responsible for it. That is like many working moms today.

Artemis was not a mother. She eventually got associated with other mother goddesses but I don't think she ever had her own child.

Demeter is clearly recognized as a mother goddess.

That may sound picky but it is very important to me. Demeter basically set her career aside when she needed to rescue her daughter. To me, a mother sacrifices herself for her children. I know this is not acceptable today, but for me, it is very honorable and very important to humanity. Our sense of right and wrong is very physical and even when our heads tell us our thinking may not be logical, our bodies will resist changing our position on right and wrong. So for me, a mother must be devoted to her children, and children should not be raised as we raise our pets, as an afterthought to our identity that is not about being a mother or a father. Treating our children as luggage that can be left on a shelve until we are ready for them, is not okay with me. That is my feeling put into words, not exactly a mandate for everyone, but something we might want to think about when we think about family, children, politics and the organization of our of the workplace and how we value mothers. Athena and Artemis do not qualify as mothers as I understand motherhood.

I really know very little of Hinduism and their gods and goddesses. I know I was shocked by the goddess, Kali the Mother and giver and taker of life. It was shocking to me that a goddess would be associated with taking life. But mind you, I come from a culture where the only female role model was Mother Mary. So for me, all the goddesses, all the different role models/ archetypes for women, was pretty amazing.

Lynne Kelly was the name I couldn’t recall - ironic considering the point was about memory systems! Haha!

Yes, that is a laugh. And thank you for sharing your humanness. I think sometimes we take ourselves too seriously and stop connecting as equal human beings who may not know everything, may forget what we do know, and may not always agree with ourselves. :rofl:

Possibility
1.2k
But all this doesn’t change the facts that are already there, that have already been produced. What Peter thought about yesterday at noon, not to mention on this date last year, is an absolute fact, now forgotten and inaccessible but if you still try to guess what it was, that guess will have a definite truth value (true, false, partly true). Your thinking about Peter’s past thinking will not change it in any way. A fact remains a fact and truth is absolute.

The future holds facts not yet produced, so of course we can change what will come, and human contact, including guesses about their past thinking, does indeed play a role in our production of new facts. But the facts that are already produced are unalterable and therefore “out there”. (That is even true about my own thinking whatever I think about it now.)
— Congau

This I disagree with. That Peter had a thought yesterday at noon may be a fact, but the contents of that thought is potential information. There is no actual fact produced from a thought except the event of thinking. You even said yourself that Peter may be just as uncertain about his thoughts as anyone else. — Possibility

:lol: You both must be young to have that argument. I am lucky if I can remember a thought for 5 minutes. My thinking disappears like a puff of smoke on a windy day. There is no substance to a thought so perhaps we should not treat a thought as a tangible reality?

I didn’t say Athena ... that is your name. Either way many inventions are accredited to Athena.

What kind of knowledge? I would like to search for answers so do you have any mythologies in mind that I might read? I know often goddesses are said to be wise but wisdom and technology are separate things. — Athena

You asked for examples of technological inventions (knowledge) from goddesses and I gave you two; Athena is a third.

Who was or wasn’t mother is important why?

Competitiveness doesn’t have to be about individual or even group-oriented domination and conflict, or about the influence of power, money or accolades. There is a deep connection between competition and cooperation that is too often ignored with particle thinking: the capacity we have to create shared meaning and possibility from an interaction of different, even opposing, perspectives. What drives us to maximise our potential and achieve more from healthy, sustainable competition is a focus on awareness, connection and collaboration, rather than individual domination and exclusion. Competitiveness isn’t about winning or losing, after all. — Possibility

Would you please go to our congress and the political meetings to explain that. What you said is awesome. I was a Toastmistress when women and men could have their separate clubs and activities. Today we only have Toastmasters where public speaking skills are practiced. We frequently had speech competitions and we ran for the different offices in the club. But it was always about cooperation. It took me a while to get that. The members lifted me to the top of all positions and I finally got what they were doing and learned the meaning of giving service as the winner who represents the club in a higher competition or the President responsible for conventions and weekly meetings. :lol: Oh lordy, especially when I was made president I realized why everyone was not in the competition. :lol: It is the rookie who gets to be president because she doesn't know enough to decline the opportunity to be president.

Now if our representatives understood what you said, life might get a whole better! Some men may understand this but taking that stand can make them appear weak, like a weak-kneed liberal you know. Here is where the woman can be most helpful, because she is admired for encouraging cooperation, and if she seems to be too pushy, will you know the bad words we say about her.

You asked for examples of technological inventions (knowledge) from goddesses and I gave you two; Athena is a third.

Who was or wasn’t mother is important why? — I like sushi

I need to go back and review everything as it relates to technology and get back to you. Thank you for clarifying, and how in heck did my mind jump to Mothers? Perhaps because I have kids on my mind and the pressure of making masks, which becomes a pressure to spend less time here. There is just too much on my mind and when push comes to shove, Demeter is going to rule me.

The answer to your question comes from Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s book "Goddesses in Everywoman" opened up life to me in a way I never imagined. Speaking of archetypes she says

These powerful inner patterns- or archetypes- are responsible for major differences among women. For example, some women need monogamy, marriage, or children to feel fulfilled, and they grieve and rage when the goal is beyond their reach. For them, traditional rules are personally meaningful. Such women differ markedly from another type of woman who most values her independence as she focuses on achieving goals that are important to her, or from still another type who seeks emotional intensity and new experiences and consequently moves from one relationship or one creative effort to the next. Yet another type of woman seeks solitude and finds that her spirituality means the most to her. What is fulfilling to one type of woman may be meaningless to another, depending on which "goddess" is active. — Bolen, M.D.

The gods and goddesses are archetypes and I find her books totally amazing! The one for men is "Gods in Everyman". It is amazing what we can learn about ourselves and others by knowing the God and Goddess are mental/emotional patterns and what our childhood experiences have to do with our mental/emotional patterns and setting our future. The cultural demand on women has changed and we seriously lack awareness of that and the ramifications. The purpose of this thread.

I was 100% Demeter. I have worked very hard to shift to Athena, but I am now a great grandmother, and Demeter continues to play a very strong role in my life. Do you know why so many women appear to be stupid? Spend a day with little children and just try to think about something other than the children. Within 5 minutes of trying to think of anything else, the children demand attention and there goes whatever else you were working on. Our present situation of people working out of their homes while the kids are home is insane!

Spend 5 years pretty much isolated with little children, and then try to identify yourself as anything besides the extension of the children's and husband's needs. Try to answer the question, "What do you want". :lol: I was isolated with children and the marriage was not going well, and I absolutely had to have professional counseling to find "a me" that was not dependent on being a wife and mother. Now jump to post women's lib and the expectation of women today. :scream: Stop the bus I want to get off.

I was thrown into a reality for which I was not prepared on any level. I wanted a career and returned to college, but stopped 15 credits short of a degree. And even if I had gotten the degree, I was not prepared to function in a career position. My sister, who is a couple of years younger, took to a professional career like a duck to water and she resented our mother for not advancing her own career and economic position so she could have been a better provider. My daughter has done well professionally and my granddaughter has no problem leaving her children with other people and not seeing them for weeks. I have always totally freaked out because these women have not been the mothers I think a woman should be and I have been very angry about not having the career I wanted. :lol: Thank goodness for Bolen's book. But you might notice, while I am using the name Athena, I am tightly controlled by Demeter. I not only gave up a career for one generation, (my cohort was going to have careers after raising our children). but for the next two more generations as well. I have enabled mothers to have the freedom to pursue their goals. A support I did not have. Someone has to care for the children, and right now we do not seem to value the people who do.

First of all, I don’t think this is so much a temporal shift as a value shift. We still turn to the earth for sustenance and comfort. But the reality is that our ‘earth mother’ isn’t focused on our individual or human sustenance and comfort, but on the general sustainability of all creation - often at our expense. This conflicts with an organic awareness of the individual ‘self’ as highest value, as evidenced by interoception of affect within the organism: prediction error, understood as suffering. — Possibility

My focus is back to the Mother. An aesthetic or scientific appreciation of nature so not at all equal to having a relationship with our Mother. Our Mother has been presented to us as both remote and uncaring, such as Nut the Egyptian goddess mother, and as caring, the patron gods and goddesses were caring and emotional, and if things were going wrong s/he could be appeased. Loving our Mother the earth, or our Father in Heaven matters a lot. Insisting they are non-existant matters a lot. If we do not think our Mother is real and important, how much do we value the mother? What is the image of what we should be? What are the qualities of the ideal woman?

My focus is back to the Mother. An aesthetic or scientific appreciation of nature so not at all equal to having a relationship with our Mother. Our Mother has been presented to us as both remote and uncaring, such as Nut the Egyptian goddess mother, and as caring, the patron gods and goddesses were caring and emotional, and if things were going wrong s/he could be appeased. Loving our Mother the earth, or our Father in Heaven matters a lot. Insisting they are non-existant matters a lot. If we do not think our Mother is real and important, how much do we value the mother? What is the image of what we should be? What are the qualities of the ideal woman? — Athena

Their existence is not a separate entity, though. They point to the truth of our relation to all the possibility of existence. It’s not a matter of choosing either the ‘Mother’ or the ‘Father’ as the source of maximum value and potential. There is no objective image of what we should be, or qualitative definition of the ‘ideal woman’. The way I see it, all of this sanctions ignorance, isolation and exclusion to some extent.

Because you’ve generously shared so much of your story, I feel I should share a different perspective. I married young, straight out of university, and focused on establishing a career. After seven years, it became clear to me that full time work was slowly killing my creative spirit, so I returned to part time study for a brief time before taking the plunge into parenting and then moving my mother’s only grandchild three hours away. Throughout this, I kept my career - but the choices and support available to me I imagine were not available for you personally, and I’ve always questioned social ‘expectations’ anyway. Working part time from home with two young children wasn’t always easy without extended family nearby to pick up the slack, but my work was flexible, and I never opted for a stranger to raise my children. When they started school, I changed to a school-based job, and eventually managed to strike a personal balance between being a parent, a wife, a professional and a creative spirit.

I used to resent my mother’s choice to sacrifice her career and stay at home, because it seemed to cripple her sense of her own potential. After my father died a decade ago and I learned more about her devastating childhood, I realised that this traditional home bubble was her refuge, and for her it was worth everything she gave up. I also struggled to understand my sister’s choice to work full time and ‘raise’ kids in full time daycare. But her children have thrived in the environment, and the love both parents give them in the time they do spend at home is of such quality that I’ve learned not to judge another woman’s definition of personal balance according to my own experience.

I love your definition of the male/ female difference and mention that this difference is based on a division of labor. The traditional division of labor shaping our experience of life and self-esteem and a sense of personal power. Are we dependent or independent? What an incredible mix of concepts that make soups of many flavors out of basically the same concepts. I think this influences our left and right politics and the political crisis in the US we are experiencing. It also takes very special people to maintain this discussion. People here are not thinking in terms of black and white, but acknowledge all the shades of grey. — Athena

I hope that what you’re starting to picture here is not a male/female difference based on any one value in particular, but more ‘fuzzy’ conceptual structures consisting of many value-related aspects that interact differently for different people, and continue to change and shift with their experience. I recognise that black and white seems to be a cultural preference for the US (or is that red and blue?), so celebrate the shades of grey. But that’s only the beginning. It’s about acknowledging the rainbow of hues, with all their variety of saturation and brightness, as well.

Their existence is not a separate entity, though. They point to the truth of our relation to all the possibility of existence. It’s not a matter of choosing either the ‘Mother’ or the ‘Father’ as the source of maximum value and potential. There is no objective image of what we should be, or qualitative definition of the ‘ideal woman’. The way I see it, all of this sanctions ignorance, isolation and exclusion to some extent" — Possibility

Out of nothing came everything. And without division, there is again nothing. When you think of the Father in heaven what do you feel? When in think of the Mother Goddess, what do you feel? If you answer nothing both times, that is a return to nothingness. There is a Chinese notion that in the last days, male and female are blended, the past and future are blended, heaven and earth become as one.

The way I see it is not ignorance to me. :grin: I love to think of the Goddess and to project myself into her. I do this for my own joy. Mathematicians argue about if math is created by us or discovered. So to the gods, were they discovered or created? Each god and goddess is a concept and together they become a complex concept such as democracy, or a kingdom. Either way, if they are created by us or discovered, both math and the gods work. Of course, not all gods work equally for everyone. It depends on our relationship with them.

Because you’ve generously shared so much of your story, I feel I should share a different perspective. I married young, straight out of university, and focused on establishing a career. After seven years, it became clear to me that full time work was slowly killing my creative spirit, so I returned to part time study for a brief time before taking the plunge into parenting and then moving my mother’s only grandchild three hours away. Throughout this, I kept my career - but the choices and support available to me I imagine were not available for you personally, and I’ve always questioned social ‘expectations’ anyway. Working part time from home with two young children wasn’t always easy without extended family nearby to pick up the slack, but my work was flexible, and I never opted for a stranger to raise my children. When they started school, I changed to a school-based job, and eventually managed to strike a personal balance between being a parent, a wife, a professional and a creative spirit.

I used to resent my mother’s choice to sacrifice her career and stay at home, because it seemed to cripple her sense of her own potential. After my father died a decade ago and I learned more about her devastating childhood, I realised that this traditional home bubble was her refuge, and for her it was worth everything she gave up. I also struggled to understand my sister’s choice to work full time and ‘raise’ kids in full time daycare. But her children have thrived in the environment, and the love both parents give them in the time they do spend at home is of such quality that I’ve learned not to judge another woman’s definition of personal balance according to my own experience.

You so remind me of my younger sister and a commercial that was popular in the 70tys. We are totally creatures of our cohort! The very clear split between my cohort and the following one is shockingly sharp. My cohort wanted careers, we just thought we should stay at home and raise our children first. My cohort's plan was to return to college and complete our degrees when the children were old enough to leave alone, then we would help finance the children through college, and we raised our daughters to get the college education and use it. :chin:

When it comes to being mothers, I don't think there is a big difference, but the timing of everything is different. Those who follow my cohort attempt to do it all like the woman in the commercial. :lol: And while you resent your mother's choice, did you rely on her to help with the children? Someone has to care for them and didn't you value your mother as that person? That is precisely the topic of this thread. Are you going to resent her or value her and honor her and appreciate her sacrifice as much as we appreciate those who give their lives war? Some of us think nothing is more important then prepare in the young in our family for life. The career is something individuals do for themselves. Caring for the family is not about ourselves, it is about FAMILY, and this the topic of this thread. You wouldn't be my sister, would you? :lol:

In the late '70s, Enjoli perfume launched a TV ad campaign that became an iconic image of the superwoman, who could "bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let you forget you're a man." — CNN

I hope that what you’re starting to picture here is not a male/female difference based on any one value in particular, but more ‘fuzzy’ conceptual structures consisting of many value-related aspects that interact differently for different people, and continue to change and shift with their experience. I recognise that black and white seems to be a cultural preference for the US (or is that red and blue?), so celebrate the shades of grey. But that’s only the beginning. It’s about acknowledging the rainbow of hues, with all their variety of saturation and brightness, as well. — Possibility

The old world order is family order. The new world order is Prussian military order applied to citizens. Family order was started by grandmothers thousands of years ago, but a modern Military-Industrial Complex(Eisenhower's term for New World Order) is far more powerful and some have argued we are like ants and this is our natural organization into a huge anthill. This is not the individuality you seem to value, and I think it is very male. I hope you have a glimmer into the possibility that there is something you are not aware of and it is much bigger than women's rights. What do you think is the ideal institution for rearing our children?

We were about family and community in a very human way that is now threatened.

This I disagree with. That Peter had a thought yesterday at noon may be a fact, but the contents of that thought is potential information. There is no actuality to a thought except the event of thinking. You even said yourself that Peter may be just as uncertain about his thoughts as anyone else. — Possibility

All facts are potential information. There are just degrees of feelings of certainty coming from more or less convincing evidence. Peter’s thought at noon will probably never be revealed, but it’s not impossible. Maybe there exists a voice recording of a speech he made at the time or maybe some god will reveal his thoughts to you in a dream. What is actual information for you, the existence of the computer you think you are looking at right now for example, is just supported by stronger evidence. Close your eyes and you no longer have any information that the computer is there; it’s just potential information.

Again, my point is not to argue for skepticism, on the contrary, all facts are absolutely existent regardless of our information about them. Our thoughts cannot alter facts that are already there, that existed before we started thinking about them.

Our thoughts and assumptions about the world (including what we imagine other people to be thinking about) certainly influence our actions and thereby we produce new facts, but that is all in the future. What we perceive or imagine about existing facts is directed at the past (even if it’s a fraction of a second into the past) and our thinking about those facts just can’t change them. We are right or wrong in an absolute sense (even though we will never know which).