I didnt realize how explosive this issue could be even on a philosophy forum, so be open enough to leave me with my own ontology

As I've said many times of this forum, I'm a Hegelian materialist nominalist. But if we take twi oak trees they have something in common (clearly), and although I don't say its because of forms united to prime matter (Aristotle), the soul emerges from the brain and spinal cord and it seems to me (I am not a Pope) that it comes in 2 types. I'm trying to let this thread die because my ideas were causing people distress, but if you have a question I can answer approximately, be my guest

(I do not believe "identity" should be forced on anyone. I am politically independent and about in the middle. This is a philosophy forum though)

I didn't discriminate against anybody. I say that all humans by soul are either male or female but all have equal dignity. Representations of these genders in bodily form will, yes, take many forms but that does not mean a general outline cannot be given

If you feel that Spinoza should have known of the "hard problem" then either you think he was wrong or you believe he thought God was conscious. BECAUSE he shrouded God in mystery, the second option is open

Modern physics only says how stuff work. Do this, that happens. That sort of thing. The electrons might be doing what the protons are said to do or the other way around. For every wave there could be a hidden particle. We don't need pilot theory to know this, but if that's works for ye that' fine. My point is much of what QM says is false because they are clothing their findings in the language of an unprovable philosophy. They can predict things, but that is all QM can do.

As for matter, it's spatial? Yes. Is all space infinitely divisible? We can't conceive it as discrete, so our natural lights say yes. So your computer is infinitely packed. This is intuitive for me at least. That objects are in a sense very finite is also true, but General Relativity goes well with infinitely parted objects in the sense I mean that. GR is a great theory, and not just because it has my initials :) Lastly, there are different kinds of density and ZP is about the relationship between volume and mass. Until you grasp this you'll be in the dark of QM topology

The divine part of our subconscious is dependent on matter but superior to it in a sense by way of emergence

Whether extension for Spinoza can have life, I do not know. We have souls ("thinking") that he says does not come from extension (matter) however. Intellect comes from the attribute of thinking. So no he is not an idealist or a materialist

Provide counter arguments and I will read them

I said I wasn't going to debate this further since I've been asked not too. My opinions are out there though, so I will just tell you briefly that a female human has a specific curvature, breasts, and a female soul. A male perhaps is harder to describe but he has a male soul. I know people think or want to believe these matters are completely and absolutely relative, but I think you would be VERY hard pressed to prove it. People accept things dogmatically in this society and its not different from the Inquisition forcing their opinion on others in the Middle Ages except that the medieval Catholics were generally more violent about it.
That's all folks

All answers to the question of if God is conscious for Spinoza is correct. He thought we had to think of him as conscious intellect, but also that we know nothing of His inner life. Its like the difference between a canine constilation and an actual dog. We can call the former a dog but stars tell you nothing definite about Fido

Reproduction is part of earthly life. I was talking about male and female in the abstract, in the sense of essential form. I understand if people got confused but I don't understand what anyone would be upset by the topic. But if that's how it is, so be it

There is a divine spark in all of us and I call that God. But it emerges from matter. Anything can become actual from potentiality

Why do you expect consciousness to come come only from another consciousness. In theism God creates consciousness from nothing, not from his nature. If a personal God can create from *nothing*, a consciousness should be able to come out out of an impersonal God

If A to B is seen as infinite fractions (half, quarter, eighth, ect) and as one travels it the mover changes color every fraction, he is not a definite color by the time he reaches B. He is kind a blur. But he can reach B because, on the flip side, A to B is a finite segment and must be finite in actuality. So there is the infinite approach and the finite way to see it. For some of us the tension between the infinite and finite here is strained and we feel there is and can only be something off about this. But as you say, it's telling us that there are aspects of reality that transcend us, and oddball paradoxes like this are just like jokes put into reality by God

Oh you watched it, good. He said it "melts the brain" to think of an infinite series going to a destination without a final term. Math, I think you're saying, explains it in its own ways, but there are aspects which still trouble philosophers

The Numberphile video on Zeno's paradox expresses concern about what is at the end of an infinite series with no final term. The mathematician said he wanted a *physicists* to explain it to him

Ok. I won't post on this thread anymore. My ideas of male-ness and femininity are obviously more within certain bounds than for others. Thanks

You would tell people with gender disphoria that gender is an illusion and to "feel" whatever they like. They should feel whatever they like, but understanding which gender they are is a real question although you think apparently think you are neither male nor female (that is, you believe that is the proper philosophical position to hold. I sure you think you are great)

Everyone knows man have breasts in the sense you mean. Are you saying they have breasts in the same sense that females do?

males have breasts — tim wood

Males "have" breasts you say, so breasts are a thing. I'm saying that "female breasts" are an ontological thing too

As I've shown, its demonstratable that space is infinitely packed. Our eyes can even see it in matter. Whether waves will be revealed to be made of particles or visa versa is irrelevant because there is always another level. Quantum physicists descriptions of reality are not necessarily accurate. They have to fit true philosophy. Why so you get your philosophy from scientists i wonder

I mentioned trans individuals because people often say we can choose our gender but then turn around and say gender is not a thing. People get very confused about this. If its not something you can reach, why are trans individuals looking for the proper gender identification to start with? Post modern people want to whole subject to be blurry beyond repair

We have some understanding of human male and female-ness. That breasts are female and not male is obvious, except you are saying that what breasts are is inherently blurry beyond recognition. Since you won't wonder about the subject, any description of a sexually individual body will, I feel, be dismissed.

I will add that in our abortion discussions in the past you've always retreated behind the idea that personhood is an inherently opaque concept. It seems you don't desire to find anything objective in these subjects

I think we all have some idea of male and female. A female has breasts by form for example. But if you are saying its all just a blur because we can't understand it completely, there no point elaborating

It's your fallacy that not knowing everything means not knowing anything. Might as well own that

No, you are able to talk about infinities although you don't understand infinity. We can something about sexuality perhaps but if these questions just frustrate people then its not fruitful and I'll go do something else instead

There seems there are too many qualities to the ideas of male and female to define them

I was referring to Platonic forms. Many think these are real only for numbers. I think they exist somehow in how they relate to sexuality

I think gender is made from identity but the body embodies it in two forms, make and female. The female is reversible in that it can have a vagina or penis but the male form has one. I don't see how we can have gender identity without concepts about the body

If I say "male form is like this" or whatever, is their a standard of what a home sapien is?

A female form is whole and represents simplicity of soul. The male form does not. We need to settle that there forms in these matters

Males are those who have genitalia that is not necessarily male. Females have genitalia that is theirs, but without contradiction they could have either genital while the male is neither. Anyway someone can be female or male and maybe something else but I don't know what that other category would be

Can we say gender identity is impossible?

It seems to me that people switch the idea of the body and soul unknowingly. Soul is identity and maybe we can never know our own for sure but as Paul says in the Bible, we have no certainty in anything. I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, but the body is not our direct identity. The body is us but we are not our body. If we are to say that the heights of our soul is beyond gender, then it is only the lower parts that feel gender identity and the person could never say what he is except as an example of God (genderless).

Are we to see gender disphoria as part of a social institution or it is part of people's spiritual lives? The priests of old who catrated themselves may have drawn the gender disphoric into their flocks

There isn't much room to speculate with pure pantheism. Hegel explicates this point at the end Philosophy of Mind

I don't think any strictly abstract philosopher can maintain a position of pantheism for long. The philosophical explication of it is really panentheism

The error of composition and the idea of emergence says that the unity of parts creates something different from what was in the parts alone

Spinoza says God has intellect. The intellect we know is our own and he says perfect free will is an illusion but also that there are passions of the soul (mind, thought). So God is conscious by analogy, but we really can't understand Him.

I hope this clarifies things

Spinoza's God is the perfect image of the Jewish Shekinah. We usually read the old Testament and latter Jewish works in light of Greek exoterisism. But these questions go far deeper (as I'm finding from reading Jung) than that and its not helpful to view Spinoza in light of Aquinas. Some of Spinoza's arguments against the "schoolmen" seem ridiculous if viewed from Aquinas's perspective. The extent to which Jewish esoteric thought influenced dear Spinoza is irrelevant to me for the reason that his works are highly esoteric in themselves while retaining a serious use of logic

Space has always been seen as the hierogamy of infinite and finite powers within some esoteric traditions. Someday I would like to do a study just on the idea of "space" in world cultural and religious traditions

I think you are wrong in assuming a computer can't, in its way of knowing, understand infinity