You answered my question as if you're a consulting anthropologist.

Nothing like that when it comes to morality. What the good is, and how to live one's life. Find anyone that doesn't suck, or says anything interesting that isn't just pointing at tradition, while claiming to be near/entirely perfected in character? — Wosret

Are we not doing the same with our morals? The detailed particular factual information about moral at all is surely overwhelmingly complex and particular, that no one's head could contain it. The idea is that morals are made of general principles, which we can gain access to through correlating actions with higher and higher levels of abstraction.

I see our moral dilemmas as secondary to our problems of epistemology and ontology. For you can't have morals without a human brain and if you have a human brain then you have some form of epistemology/ontology going on. In fact the definitions we use to think about morals stem from knowledge... but alas we are in agreement about the fact that people think they have a clue when they don't. a security blanket.

Sounds intimidating. When I went to see wonder woman, some girls set behind us, and at one point I heard one audibly say something about my ear hair. I told my sister, and she thought I was paranoid. She doesn't realize that pointing out my ear hair, and making a comment about figuring out how to grow my head hair back is considered a pretty good retort or reproach me by like every single woman I encounter. It's attempted emotional violence with a smile on their face.

When the toxic person arrives, do they poison the environment, or are they subtly knocked down, retaliated against, and put into their rightful place? What's done about them when identified as the enemy?

? Is morality like physical? Made of parts, and facts that exist externally to agents, and can be laboriously quantified and mapped? Morality is analogous to the physical environment?

? Is morality like physical? Made of parts, and facts that exist externally to agents, and can be laboriously quantified and mapped? Morality is analogous to the physical environment? — Wosret

No, just in the way we come to understand and engage with it. In that respect we observe the same pattern in our response to the physical world and knowledge in the same way as morals.

I tried to make this explicit in the first sentence by using the verb "doing" in "Are we not doing the same with our morals?"

No, they're clearly not the same thing, and analogous (this is pretty much just common sense, isn't it?), and you acknowledge this yourself in the same post you are suggesting that they're analogous in. I don't really want to just try to explain everything I say, so if people are just going to respond to me to be confrontational, or for whatever reason, and don't really show any grasp of it, I don't feel compelled to respond.

↪Bitter Crank You answered my question as if you're a consulting anthropologist. — Mongrel

I'm trying to work out whether "consulting anthropologist" is a positive or a negative.

Neither. It just shows that your telepathy skills suck. For a lot of people in the late 20th, it's like the ghost of the patriarchy was around.. maybe from childhood observations. But the real world was chaotic when it came to gender roles, family structure, etc. Sometimes a lot of energy would go into trying to deal with that chaos. One imagines past generations weren't burdened so much with that?

I'm Gen-X. It just occurred to me that the gap between my experience and yours might be a barrier to communication about it. Anyway.. I wasn't talking about anthropology. The OP wasn't either. If he had been, he wouldn't have abandoned this thread to waltz around this forum randomly congratulating and complimenting posters.

It's attempted emotional violence with a smile on their face. — Wosret

'The Devil is not defeated with violence, but with laughter.' -- could have been a Nietzsche quote... who knows?

Just laugh at them back. I had this weird situation once where an obscene phone caller kept calling me (I was young). I was shocked at first, but on one occasion he called and caught me in a goofy mood. I burst out laughing at his ridiculous speech and he never called me back.

When the toxic person arrives, do they poison the environment, or are they subtly knocked down, retaliated against, and put into their rightful place? What's done about them when identified as the enemy? — Wosret

In the nursing home? It would just be a sort of banishment. Whatever the toxic person is dealing with: they'll have to deal with it on their on. Say the toxic woman was sexually abused by her father and she had to deal with him over the weekend and it sucked emotionally and she would feel better if she could talk about it to other women. She's stuck with it though. Nobody will talk to her if she has a history of being a jerk.

But if the girls were young, just remember that young people try out stuff. They aren't always expressing their true emotions. If you can, just overlook it?

That's is a frequent response of mine as well, the ol'cold shoulder. To turn your back on them. Physically violent people tend to expect a lot of courtesy, and respect. Emotionally violent people tend to expect to be entirely protected from being forced to do anything that they don't wanna do. Both see the other one as a far far worse thing than the thing that they do, but both are violence. Both aim at harm, or retribution.

I confront them, and tell them the truth. The truth is a violent attack on the ego, and it also hurts deeply, but it is violence against the devil, and liberating of the real person. This fact is easily missed though, and seen as the same thing that a physically, or emotionally violent person is doing. True violence is dominating, belittling, downgrading. To lower someone on the pole of status in some way with regards to oneself.

The truth may hurt even more than any of those, but it aims are precisely the opposite.

I think some of the worst violence is emotional. There usually has to be a bond of love to begin with for that kind of violence to happen. But with that bond in place, another person can totally fuck you over from the inside. It doesn't leave any outward scars. It can leave you struggling to find perspective.

That's a dimension of the Catholic priest abuse thing... the emotional violence. Maybe bringing the truth to the light of day doesn't fix the offender. It might keep somebody else safe from the offender though.

Nothing is more complex than the interactions between dynamos. I literally do not see the two as distinct. Simply because I can separate both the emotional hurt, and the physical hurt from the social pain. Firstly, predictable violence is much much easier to deal with. You know what to do, and not to do. When it's unpredictable, and abrupt, that drives you insane. It's the intent to harm, and lower you on the status pole that matters, and isn't merely an intent, but these behaviors are used amazingly effectively, and result in the same kinds of destruction to the victim.

Simply hurting yourself by falling, or having a loved one die do not have these same prolonged harmful effects, and actually are more likely to come with insights that elevate you. That bring strength and wisdom.

It's the intent to harm, and lower you on the status pole that matters, and isn't merely an intent, but these behaviors are used amazingly effectively, and result in the same kinds of destruction to the victim. — Wosret

So what do you do about it when someone comes along who's being really effective at this sort of thing... so much so that people you've known for years side with the malignant person over you?

Delve deeper? Try to see what psychic stuff it's related to?

I'd like to believe that I'm immune to deception at this point -- but not true. I doubt that anyone could slip an inconsistency, statistical unlikelihood, factually mistaken, or logically fallacious idea past me, but when it comes to body language, anyone with a superior physical discipline can fool me, as long as they make no technical errors. I'm not even the best male at it, let along a match for most females.

I'm slow is all, but as the Buddha said, like the moon and the sun, the truth never remains long hidden. The physical damage it causes, the tightness and stiffness and attachment they cause, I'll notice eventually, and force a release, which will reveal the cause of it. So I won't notice immediately. Even children with inferior physical disciplines will often still possess more acute senses, and can fool me.

I am improving everyday though, and still have lots of room for growth.

As for what I'd do in that situation... well unless they have a book of the end, then it won't be a long term strategy, and the truth will come out eventually. If they're powerful enough to maintain the illusion, they I guess that it's time for battle.

Oh, so don't fight nature. Let things go as they will. That makes sense.

How do you force a release? Meditating? Yoga?

I imagine that meditation is just the thing that happens to me when I space out alone, not engaged with anything, though it isn't intentional, or something I do on purpose. Though I did train it for awhile.

I developed the internal physical awareness to notice when things get bound up through yoga, yes. I still do yoga from time to time, but not nearly as frequently. I feel like it is just training an internal physical awareness, rather than just being an exercise.

So, yeah, yoga.

So when the release happens, do you become aware of what it's associated with?

Yes, the cause is revealed to me. The intention, or meaning of the negative emotion that impacted me, basically. It brings the memory back to the event, and reveals the actual intention or meaning of that thing they said or did. Difficult to describe. I just release it, and then I know.

I'm going to try to develop that physical awareness.

It's pretty great. I owe pretty much everything to it honestly. I'm more than confident that one could achieve the same thing from the other direction. Psychological transformation transforming the body as well, which is really what religion is about -- but I did it the other way around.

Could somebody explain why asking if all women are submissive is not demeaning but asking if a particular woman is...is?

Could I get one of our women-folk to explain this? The male-folk insist on it but won't explain it. — Mongrel

I went to my old gits' (people of 60+) philosophy group today, a dozen of us, we were discussing Simone de Beauvoir and how you acquire your gender. Of course it's an atypically gentle group, perhaps, but there was a widespread feeling among all of us of this generation that some remarkable changes happened in this period. Our fathers wouldn't touch a nappy, were proud their womenfolk didn't have to work, were uneasy talking about emotion and expected women to accept second place in decision-making. We knew the expectations but thanks to peace, prosperity and the education of women equally, a great many things have been transformed.

Pardon me if this is just Old McDoodle spouting feminism-lite. But a great sea-change occurred to people I know in our lifetimes. This idea of something essential in woman-ness that might be about submissive-ness - it seems like a question asked in some distant planet that only faintly resembles mine.

Submission en masse is about power, on this view, so our discussion did also go on to talk about British Asian women: second- and third-generation Asian women seem to be part-running the world round here, in fashionable hijabs (but they're still hijabs) and forthright manners, but they still go home to a conservative patriarchal outlook, and sometimes they're still married off to men from the old country who come from deep patriarchy; while a minority of their brothers in a second-generation way become more loyal to a lost set of values than their parents who tried to fit in.

Thanks. I was sort of trying to discuss the massive changes that took place in the 20th with BC.

Over here, there's a Hulu TV show that's caught a lot of attention. It's an episodic production of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. It's about a future where all those changes have been washed away by a biological disaster. Somebody was saying that the show is hitting a nerve because of Trump.

I think it's true that immigrants are sometimes more conservative than their home societies were. I can think of a couple of examples of that.

Over here, there's a Hulu TV show that's caught a lot of attention. It's an episodic production of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. It's about a future where all those changes have been washed away by a biological disaster. Somebody was saying that the show is hitting a nerve because of Trump. — Mongrel

Yes the Attwood thing is big over here too. The mores of Silicon Valley seem oddly 'frat-boy' too, as I've seen them called lately: that makes me suddenly feel with a lurch, that maybe this whole shift over several decades towards kindness - and that is part of what I feel it to have been - could all be rolled back.

At one time I would have said it was about recognizing the humanity of various kinds of people... not really about kindness.

It could be rolled back. Sure. It just takes the right set of circumstances. There is sexism sleeping under the leaves waiting to sprout. I think what I learned from this thread is that there's no point in fighting that.

↪Bitter Crank Neither. It just shows that your telepathy skills suck. — Mongrel

I'm sure my telepathy skills are worse than sucky. Like non-existent. Same for you. It doesn't exist.

For a lot of people in the late 20th, it's like the ghost of the patriarchy was around.. maybe from childhood observations. — Mongrel

"Wooooo moooooan" the vaporish ghost of patriarchy howled, "I have come to haunt you now, and I will haunt you forever... We're coming for you, Mongrel..."

Telepathy, ghosts, the imaginary patriarchal social systems -- I don't know when I've been attacked by so many spiritualistic terms.

But the real world was chaotic when it came to gender roles, family structure, etc. Sometimes a lot of energy would go into trying to deal with that chaos. One imagines past generations weren't burdened so much with that? — Mongrel

"Real world was chaotic"... like how far back are we talking? 1995? 1763? 1066? 1000?

I'm Gen-X. It just occurred to me that the gap between my experience and yours might be a barrier to communication about it. — Mongrel

BS. I am older than you, but not by centuries, after all. Any two people might find it difficult to communicate, but most likely the cause will not be from being born 20 years sooner or later. Things just haven't changed that much. Gender roles and family structure have been changing under various economic and social pressures pretty much since the Industrial Revolution began.

It does seem to me that the lives of many families have become more chaotic in the period following the end of the baby boom and the beginning of the alleged X Generation.

here's a song from 1926 reflecting gender fluidity (and here the progressive POMOs thought they invented it!):

Anyway.. I wasn't talking about anthropology. The OP wasn't either. If he had been, he wouldn't have abandoned this thread to waltz around this forum randomly congratulating and complimenting posters. — Mongrel

The fucking nerve --handing out compliments randomly. Do I hear a waltz?

Yes. I know what you mean. What some people in the emergency department are thinking about the dude with little charcoal stumps for hands and feet is that if he survives and wakes up and starts talking, we'll all discover why it would occur to somebody to douse him in gasoline and throw a match. People get jaded by their experiences. The whole population just becomes one giant loudmouth jerk that somebody needs to sedate.

I see your pain, but to what, exactly are you responding?

I thought you were talking about that scene from Innocents Abroad where they were standing around looking at Christopher Columbus' signature. That was hilarious.

Could somebody explain why asking if all women are submissive is not demeaning but asking if a particular woman is...is? — Mongrel

:s LOL What's weird is that you singled out one female member who you like sending PMs to and who isn't you and asked the question about her. Of course that's demeaning. Would you want someone to ask such a thing about you in particular? No, probably not. It would be like starting a thread "Is Agustino Gay?" - of course that would be demeaning, because you'd be signalling me out. And it would be demeaning even though being gay is not in itself demeaning in any way. But sure, if you want to ask about a particular woman, why don't you ask about yourself? I'm sure nobody will mind a thread started by Mongrel to discuss Mongrel.

I can tell you about AT&T. Everybody I worked with was male. The environment was consciously patterned after the US military (which, like Napoleon, adopted the Prussian military organizational scheme.)

This visual came to me one time. All the men were like giant grapes. Normally, they'd be plump, but occasionally big Meany would pass by and suck the juice out of everybody in his path leaving a trail of dried out raisins. I perceive that we do that a lot on this forum (some more than others.) When it happens, I think in the back of my mind that the sucker probably had all his grape juice sucked out by some other Big Meany... maybe his boss, maybe life in general?

A female dominated environment is a nursing home. I worked in one for a while. One huge difference is that there's no purpose to a nursing home the way there is to a business like AT&T. There's no goal. The job is finished when the patient is dead, but we're not trying to accomplish that.. you know? We're just doing the same things people have been doing since there have been people... wiping butts, feeding people who can't feed themselves, over and over.

One odd feature of that environment is a sort of emotional cloud that develops. Everybody contributes to the cloud and everybody partakes of it. Probably the fact that after a while everybody's menstrual cycle is happening at the same time is a factor. The "female ethics" is in that cloud. If you're feeling like a raisin, that cloud will support you... without much reasoning or goal to it. It's just what people have been doing since there have been people. Whatever is going on with you.. other people can feel it.

Does that make sense? If a really toxic person shows up, either environment has its own kind of immune system. But then... some people are so toxic that they're actually lethal. — Mongrel

Oh, how curious that you portray "male ethics"as having your juice sucked out and becoming a dry raisin, while you portray "female ethics" as a nursing home, with a cloud that everyone freely partakes from.

Would you want someone to ask such a thing about you in particular? — Agustino

OMG. Why didn't I think of putting my name in the thread title instead of hers? Oh well.. doesn't matter now.