View Full Version : The feminist considers gene vs environment


SB_UK
05-13-14, 03:03 PM
This idea came up today; it's interesting.

I started out life as gene camp (default) and have moved into the environment camp (complete disregard for genetics as of primary concern)

Male can father a child until whenever.
Female becomes compromised in bearing a child at > 30 yrs (http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0815/afp20000815p825-f1.gif)

If passing the gene on is the current dominant model of evolution we're at - then male utility extends far beyond female utility.

If however we look at the sensory realm (of female contribution to society) - then we can see that (for instance) with the extended lives of women - that women contribute more than men in this sphere of influence.

So - we've a materialist view (genome) which places men of greater importance than woman.
And - the sensory/informational/environmental view (memome) which places man and woman as equals - perhaps women more so -

- my point being that 'it's all in the genes' and 'it's all about passing your genes on' does not apply to human beings
- who since generation of mind - have been more about neural association rearrangements rather than genomic rearrangements.

-*-

IE the pure genetic/materialist/'it's all in the genes/passing the genes on' is a profoundly anti-feminist stance because at age ~30 yrs - female ceases to be use.

Just an interesting idea - which struck me as being true.

SB_UK
05-13-14, 03:16 PM
My view now turns to consideration of the gene being as fruitless as considering the spin-states of all your charming quarks in understanding man.

We're neural sensory, informational, thinking, communicating just plain neural constructs
- the gene must of course be retained
- but to understand all of the larger problems we face
- studies at the genetic level won't lead anywhere unlike physiological/psychological/sociological and epidemiological studies ie the study of a whole human in a whole society.

Breaking up human beings into bits and studying them in isolation doesn't lead us anyplace useful.

There's no way of growing a leg in a petri dish and expecting it to relax when played Boards of Canada.

dvdnvwls
05-13-14, 04:48 PM
Equating (recognizing that ADHD has a mainly genetic source) with (materialism) is interesting.

What is there in your own view of this particular topic that would disagree with a materialistic philosophy? Not saying you are a materialist, just saying I think you're creating a false dichotomy.

SB_UK
05-14-14, 03:38 AM
That's the interesting part.

Materialism - material world - DNA - genome
Immaterialism - sensory / informational world - mind - memome

The materialist viewpoint wants to see a material world solution to our problems.

And that viewpoint was right but only up until the emergence of mind where everything changed.

The anti-feminist sexist view that women are only useful as receptacles for baby, and man as competitive beasts warring between one another to conquer female - sounds like it may have been true at some point in our evolution (pre-mind)
- but it has very much been transcended.

The interesting part is that the materialist viewpoint lingers on (with its negative associations implicit though rarely stated explicitly because of even the dullest mind knowing that they're not acceptable views)
- but lingers on in the theory that genetics is all, in warfare (generally a male vs male thing), in the association between young women and older men (sugar daddies), in the reactive hatred of any form of sexuality which isn't heterosexual (and generally overly sexual heterosexual) ... ...

My point - and in line with the post above by dvdnvwls is that there's an animal mindset and a human mindset.
The animal mindset describes a constellation of views which is material world centric.
The properly human mindset describes a constellation of views which is informational/communication/sensory world/quality centric.

At point of birth we have no mind.
Unless the mind is built to completion - the material mindset lingers.
Upon completion of the mind (state wisdom) - the properly human mindset pushes the material mindset away.

And that's why we see moral (anti-war, pro-feminist, egalitarian, pro-art, pro-quality, pro-society) views echoed by those who persist with and develop their own mind.

Note - development of mind/completion of mind is nothing to do with molecular expertise - being a world expert in Klingon won't in itself get you there - in fact, will - in itself take you further from wisdom.
Because your world revolves around a mass of knowledge which is of no species worth ie the Klingon expert contributes his life and alters the social landscape to welcome a field of endeavour which through having no species benefit - works to species detriment through propagation.

The basic saying is - 'don't use your imagination to escape reality, use it to improve reality'.

SB_UK
05-14-14, 04:49 AM
Can a materialist entertain the existence of imagination ?

SB_UK
05-14-14, 05:15 AM
As described previously - the 'all in the genes' model was used by the rich to describe their 'advantage' over the poor (physically diseased, poorly educated) ie a justification of why a ruling class should persist
- when in actual fact, all that was being justified was psychopathy selection (materialist worldview) which reactively generated a poor underclass with physical and mental problems.

So - we've a materialist world view which self-propagated in much the same way that alcoholics recruit alcoholics desire only alcohol.

The point being that the desire for materialism/materialistic world view run in perfect parallel with material world addiction ie to heroin, alcohol - but also to money, power.
If addicted to money,power what better way to justify keeping onto it by suggesting that evidence shows that the rich are genetically better - and that it is encumbent upon them to rule.

Absolute nonsense.

The rich (those who embrace money,power, the materialist ideology including that 'it's all in the genes') are directly responsible for the suffering of others.

Noting that it's attachment to the material world (materialist ideology) which standard religion states is the basis to human suffering.

-*-

The only slight addition to the story here - is to point the finger at supposedly high minded intellectual pursuits eg it's all in the genes
- as part of a materialist constellation which includes addiction to money/power.

Interesting - because the connection isn't as immediately obvious.

SB_UK
05-14-14, 05:36 AM
So to re-iterate 'it's all in the genes' is a profoundly anti-feminist stance, and should be considered as repulsive a notion as suggesting that a woman's only role is to have children - a man's too -
putting (in this wholly incorrect world view) - a woman's useful life as ~ 10 years and a man's longer if he survives competition to the death for female impregnation.

All of this (the material world view) is very definitely present within society - but I think most people realise that it's running antagonistically with a properly human world-view
- one which places equality (properly human) over material world hierarchy (material/animal world view eg the alpha male/female).

Everything to do with material world hierarchy is wrong (immoral) post emergence of mind.

Before - well maybe fine - a mechanism to genomic evolution or whatever - but we're past all of that.

dvdnvwls
05-14-14, 04:19 PM
I see a great deal of reiterating and not a great deal of engagement in the conversation. What is there in deciding to ignore the genetic inheritance of ADHD that goes against a materialist's philosophy?

Fortune
05-14-14, 05:33 PM
Okay, so:

Women are not "compromised" at 30. It's not like a steep cliff where at 29 children are viable and at 30 it's all over.

Acknowledging genes is not anti-woman and anti-feminist, and trying to link acknowledgment of genes to misogyny is a pretty rubbish argument.

The argument is too black and white anyway.

Accepting the reality that genes are a significant element of how all life on Earth develops does not automatically equate to thinking that the only value anyone has is inextricably linked to their reproductive potential.

We may not even have the degree of understanding genetics that we do today if it weren't for a woman named Rosalind Elsie Franklin (https://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/franklin.html), considering that Watson and Crick appropriated her work and failed to credit her.

And really, finally, I think that feminism is not really about men deciding what gets to be feminist and what does not. Here is something more feminist: Men not trying to tokenize women in order to make a faulty, illogical argument.

SB_UK
05-14-14, 05:40 PM
I see a great deal of reiterating and not a great deal of engagement in the conversation. What is there in deciding to ignore the genetic inheritance of ADHD that goes against a materialist's philosophy?

No predisposition towards seeing / rejection of alternative hypotheses.

Simple example - ever remember a right winger give a speech on the wonders of left wing politicians ?

Natural antipathy - visceral rejection - not based on reason - but in effect - lack of it.

Where I'm describing the global materialist paradigm (extending as above) as being a failure in reasoning.

SB_UK
05-14-14, 05:52 PM
We may not even have the degree of understanding genetics that we do today if it weren't for a woman named Rosalind Elsie Franklin (https://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/franklin.html), considering that Watson and Crick appropriated her work and failed to credit her.


It's hard to reply to a post which suggests that despite a woman having assisted in defining the structure of DNA, that it wouldn't have been found anyway.

Delete the 15 billion or so people who've existed over the last 5000 years, and allow whichever parents were around at that time to have another set of kids
- we'd have an entirely different 15 billion people generated and we WOULD know the structure of DNA.

There is no question that the contributions of Rosalind Franklin, Einstein, Newton would have been made by others.

Maybe Einstein would have been a female ? Or perhaps (as many people seem to suggest) much of Einstein's work was performed by a female
- Voltaire too - Shakespeare also ... ...
will we ever know ?

However - the point stands that adopting a materialist stand (at level of mind) which reflects the materialist stance (in terms of mating as seen in the animal kingdom) is a big mistake
- because it features men and woman and the relationship between men and women on a level which would be considered below the ideal (equality) structure which most people recognize should delineate human society.

The point in this thread is that the type of mind which is attracted to that form of society is not yet complete - irrational
- and that the irrational 'materialist' model mind has an affection (see post above) to solving all of man's problems on the material realm
- ie a predisposition which reflects imperfect reasoning capacity to seeing material constructs eg gene as being responsible (falsely) for human ills.

The imperfection lies in embracing non material ie social effects upon material factors ie failure to see a higher level of control, which itself controls material world factors.

In plain English - the environment shapes the behaviour of the gene particularly with respect to all diseases which have been falsely classified as genetic by standard twin studies - falsely because of the inheritance of epialleles.

SB_UK
05-14-14, 06:13 PM
Women are not "compromised" at 30. It's not like a steep cliff where at 29 children are viable and at 30 it's all over.Simply - because these posts take too long otherwise.
That's the point of the link - to qualify the statement.

Acknowledging genes is not anti-woman and anti-feminist, and trying to link acknowledgment of genes to misogyny is a pretty rubbish argument.'Rubbish' arguments are rubbished by explaining why they're rubbish and not by labelling them as rubbish. Imagine if somebody followed you around stating that everything you stated was rubbish - would you concur ? Or require some explanation ?

Accepting the reality that genes are a significant element of how all life on Earth develops does not automatically equate to thinking that the only value anyone has is inextricably linked to their reproductive potential. The argument is 'it's all in the genes' RE:disease and discard/diminish environment - as the dominant model in disease. Why ? Simpler potential modification / Pharmaceutical involvement.
Just money.
To be clear there will be no drug that is found to eliminate disease - only changing our collective environment will work effectively.
So - to be clear - we've a dominant model of 'broken genes' leading to disease and I'm simply adding that the overwhelming tendency to consider genome over memome is symptomatic of a mind which (see above) is stuck in the materialist (anti-female/anti-feminist) mode.
'It's all in the genes' places undue emphasis on genes - courts a world view which states that competition/dissemination of your genes is your primary concern (which it may have been on our evolutionary journey - but no longer is) - harks back to a model of relationship between man and woman which (to be fair) few men and no women (these days) would enjoy - an alpha male (King, Emperor,President, Dictator) exerting abuse on all others.
The evidence of this type is clear throughout history - the point being naturally that these people had no view on genetic inheritance of disease (though genetics did kick off under the belief that the rich were of better genetic stock) - however that if we were to give the tyrannical minds of history a little more knowledge - they'd have reported back the materialist conclusion that the material construct of gene was responsible.
Just a failure in reasoning capacity reflected in an individual's affiliation with materialist philosophy.

And really, finally, I think that feminism is not really about men deciding what gets to be feminist and what does not. Here is something more feminist: Men not trying to tokenize women in order to make a faulty, illogical argument.Feminism is about gender female (particularly mental gender female see empathizing type from Simon Baron Cohen) gaining parity with gender male (particularly mental gender male noting that some gender females bear male minds - systematizing).
There is some need to define terms - ie what is a woman - what is a man - it's really not as easy as you think given LGBT types - who should not be left out of the general thrust of feminism.
To be informative Illogical arguments are highlighted using elegance -
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1648385&postcount=113

Ganjin
05-15-14, 09:04 PM
Your notion of the word "materialist" is a strange one. A materialist perspective has no more inherent sexism or bigotry than a non-materialist (say, ideational) perspective.

And the focus upon genetics is but one form of materialist explanation. Environmental variables are also materialist as often as not.

SB_UK
05-16-14, 05:07 AM
Your notion of the word "materialist" is a strange one. A materialist perspective has no more inherent sexism or bigotry than a non-materialist (say, ideational) perspective.

And the focus upon genetics is but one form of materialist explanation. Environmental variables are also materialist as often as not.

The point I'm making is that a materialist mindset (occurring pre-wisdom) is inherently sexist.

The inherent sexism of the material mindset (call this pre-enlightenment if you like) is accompanied by a world-view which sees a less than abstract big picture, in which all problems are material world in nature hence attraction for gene defects rather than the less material world human interaction.

Some environmental variables refer to factors associated with the material world, but you're confusing my usage of materialist mindset with material world.

Ganjin
05-16-14, 10:18 PM
The point I'm making is that a materialist mindset (occurring pre-wisdom) is inherently sexist.

The inherent sexism of the material mindset (call this pre-enlightenment if you like) is accompanied by a world-view which sees a less than abstract big picture, in which all problems are material world in nature hence attraction for gene defects rather than the less material world human interaction.

Some environmental variables refer to factors associated with the material world, but you're confusing my usage of materialist mindset with material world.

Yes, I know that's the point you're trying to make. And I simply don't see that point as being in any way true.

I repeat, there is nothing inherently sexist about a materialist worldview. And there is certainly nothing inherently sexist about genetics! But it's true that I'm confused by your use of this notion of a "materialist mindset". It seems like what you mean is simply the 'all genetics, all the time' crowd.

SB_UK
05-17-14, 05:24 AM
Materialist mindset = Pre-enlightenment = Pre-wisdom = Incomplete mind = Fielding incomplete global logical consistency with the wellbeing of all people = Incapacity for fully abstract thinking = Through necessity 'material' world bias

- reflecting itself as we see in the animal kingdom of alpha male vs, multiple females ie inherently sexist behaviour

- with the diminished capacity for abstract thinking and tendency to see material world problems solved via material world solutions - natural tendency to see genes and not environment as causative
- where environment extends far beyond the material world - your mind's reaction to this post (as an example) is a contextual/environmental factor.

-*-

So back around.

The point is that a materialist mindset has a certain world view which is material-world centric.
This can be likened to the 'world-view' of an animal.
The material world is all there is to an animal.

Human beings are trapped in a difficult place - where human beings (upon completion of mind) can see that there is no such thing as the 'hard' material world which eg we find that children have if asked about their environment.

I'm suggesting that the pre-wise mind is predisposed to see material world problems as material world in nature ie material world disease is caused by material world gene.
However - all of this is based on the state of their pre-wise (material world centric) mind.

In addition to the incapacity to grasp non material-world centric ideas - other aspects from the animal kingdom ie inherently sexist behaviour (eg alpha male versus multiple females) is sought.

So - propensity to failure to see the limitations of genetic basis to disease / to see no non-material factors causing disease / to sexist behaviour / to incompletion of mind / to tendency towards classical definition of materialism (ie the desire for money, power, sexual abuse relationships)
- all tied together in 1 large constellation.

So - if we draw the causal line:

Incomplete mind -> Incapacity for abstract thinking -> genes cause disease ie material world factor causes material world factor <- this is how a lack of capacity for abstract thought is manifest
Incomplete mind -> Attraction for inherently sexist behaviour

There's a strong correlation between 'sexism' and 'genes cause disease'
- noting that it's not causal - but strongly correlated.

Both standpoints are causal on state of mind.

So - let's take a feminist (defined as non-sexist / equality desiring behaviour post-completion of mind) viewpoint - the feminist would not support the 'genes cause disease' model of disease causation as fundamentally counter the feminist's mind.

However - if you were to define a feminist not as someone who defines equality of all people (truly desired through possessing a complete globally logically consistent mind) - then you've defined simply another incomplete bigoted individual (as reflection of mind) - which will not be contravened by a truly incompatible idea ('genes cause disease model'), with truly feminist (intrinsically and rationally - equality for all desiring) view.

SB_UK
05-17-14, 05:34 AM
So - it's the affinity to a certain perspective ie an incapacity to entertain the big picture which I'm pointing to.
Imagine that we were to give an animal the power to use the human mind - what you would generate would be Homer Simpson.
No usage of mind for any factor other than straight material world factors ie food, drink ... ...

This is the material-world centric mind - to be contrasted against Lisa Simpson's mind which reflects (reasonably well) - the complete mind, moral mind - the feminist mind.

Homer's mind would be confused by more abstract ideas (Lisa's ideas).
Lisa's mind would be confused by overly simplistic world-views (Homer' ideas).

Of course there are some conditions in which a broken gene causes disease - but that's not what I'm pointing at - I'm pointing at the tendency (preference for simple material world solutions to problems like Homer) to see that broken genes cause disease particularly when the evidence is that they don't (Homer's mind has no alternative hypothesis - and so will pursue genetic causation regardless of evidence that there is nothing or little worth consideration (only a tiny contribution attributable to demonstrable genetic variation))
- but instead of accepting that they don't there's a dogged resistance to seeking alternative explanations - because the alternative explanations are more abstract and require the consideration of factors which are not 'classically' of the material world eg thoughts/emotional, psychological reactivities.

-*-

At the simplest possible level - you're either a Homer mind which likes things simple or a Lisa mind which needs things to make sense (globally).
Homer will have a predisposition to material world explanations and won't be able to see alternatives.
Homer is sexist.

Lisa will have a tendency towards explanations which make sense taking into account all possible information - and so will be free to accept a non-material world (not genetic) model for disease causation which (if the evidence shows) is correct - allows her to investigate elsewhere.
Homer won't look.
Lisa is a feminist.

Homer mind -> Incapacity for abstract thinking -> genes cause disease ie material world factor causes material world factor <- this is how a lack of capacity for abstract thought is manifest
Homer mind -> Attraction for inherently sexist behaviour

There's a strong correlation between 'sexism' and 'genes cause disease'
- noting that it's not causal - but strongly correlated.

-*-

Note - that was a very rapidly constructed analogy - I haven't thought it through - and was only constructed to simplify the idea right the way down.
I realise eg that it's unlikely that a child of her age will be able to express the level of wisdom which I'm suggesting is required to be a true feminist - but she has obviously had her script constructed by somebody who is far older - and wise it appears.

SB_UK
05-17-14, 06:12 AM
In 1 sentence - does this help ?

The mind which is required for a feminist world view is capable of entertaining the possibility that material world effects may not be responsible for material world affects.

Ganjin
05-17-14, 05:50 PM
Materialist mindset = Pre-enlightenment = Pre-wisdom = Incomplete mind = Fielding incomplete global logical consistency with the wellbeing of all people = Incapacity for fully abstract thinking = Through necessity 'material' world bias

- reflecting itself as we see in the animal kingdom of alpha male vs, multiple females ie inherently sexist behaviour

- with the diminished capacity for abstract thinking and tendency to see material world problems solved via material world solutions - natural tendency to see genes and not environment as causative
- where environment extends far beyond the material world - your mind's reaction to this post (as an example) is a contextual/environmental factor.
.

As I said before, your use of the word materialist is peculiar, and it is strictly your own construction. Since you have defined it as inferior and/or incomplete, there's no real argument to be made.

Genetic explanations are complex, but they're probably always simpler than environmental explanations. But this does not change the fact that the environment is composed of largely MATERIAL factors. I think what's appealing about genetic explanations is the sheer simplicity of those ideas. And yes, I agree that there is a profit motive at work as well because pharma offers treatments for strictly biochemical problems.

I find your view of the animal kingdom peculiar as well. Animals are not sexist. And "alpha male for multiple females" is only one of many social configurations among animals. You see the MATERIAL conditions of life sometimes favor other forms of social organization.

Where I disagree with you most strongly is in this dichotomous construct itself... Material vs abstract (or whatever you're calling it). In my view, this dualism is more of a problem than anything else.

meadd823
05-23-14, 04:33 AM
reflecting itself as we see in the animal kingdom of alpha male vs, multiple females ie inherently sexist behaviour



I apologize but this is a point I just can't leave be - One alpha male with multiple females may be a social order for some animal species such as lion prides how ever other animals like the ants in my pants and the bees in my bonnet may disagree with this arrangement as in totally.

Some forms of wasp have managed to completely eliminating the need to have males all together.


Most spiders you see are females.

Among several species of elephants and even some primates group activity is determined by a female matriarch where as males are more loosely associated.


Other species such as moles and penguins the pair forms a bond with both parents caring equally for their off-spring.


Even in my feral cat colonies the females make up the core of the colony where as the males tend to roam about - Males are dominate until a week or so before the kittens are born then the females {called queens for a reason } will run all intact the males off - Oddly enough females will often leave neutered male cats alone as long as there is sufficient food sources and they do not interfere with kitten litters - Intact adult males are all run off by the time the kittens are born because where they were once dominate they become competition for food. I have witness several small queens taking turns attacking a large Tom who is especially resistant to the idea of "getting lost". The queens take turns resting while the Tom is kept moving and moving on he will eventually. This is done as a means of diverting all local food sources to the care of the next generation. Some females groups work together to raise kittens where as others form individual territories.

My point being while there are definitely inherent social tendencies with in a species there are no hard fast rules in animal social behavior. Group behavior of any given species is often greatly determined by abundance of food, shelter and levels of danger as well as the temperaments of the individual animals.


If there is an inherent natural tendency in nature toward biological value it would be the males are generally used for procreation purposes then discarded - but even that is no hard fast rule as some animals it is the male that actually care for the off spring, other animals are both male and female! Thirty of the strangest mating habits (http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/30/30-strangest-animal-mating-habits/#!POfVZ)

SB_UK
05-24-14, 04:17 AM
Don't we though need to look for the animal models which best describe what appears to happen in human society ?

When animal models are used to study human disease - we look for animals which suffer a similar disease.

The other examples of relationships between male and female (described by MeaADD823) just aren't as apparent as the model of philandering.

Isn't there a strong model in fiction - of woman having to choose between the stable and the philandering option eg 'Bridget Jones' Diary' ... ... almost as though there's a transition occurring there right in front of our eyes - between a more primitive and a modern male - female orientation.

I thin the kids have just watched Pirates of the Caribbean 2 - and in that also - there's a relationship between 1 woman - 1 inappropriate,unsafe,cowardly,'exciting' and 1 safe man.

The roving, abusive male vs multiple females is a particular (not the only) evolutionary pattern observed amongst our ancestors - which replicates strongly now
- and I think it's generally well considered that this pattern of male behaviour (male archetype of mind behaviour) isn't helpful in forming a stable society.

Carried just a little further - this basic motivation can extend into rape.

A power relationship between male and female.

So instead of suggesting that the only relationship between male and females is alpha male vs multiple females - it's to suggest that this pattern is the one which most accurately describes what we see out there in society.

The people who enjoy the power of money, the power of power - also seem to enjoy the power relationship of sex - the first person to spring to mind is an Italian politician with initials similar to mine.

But it's a general pattern - very much seen amongst the politician type and 'rich' type.

Pointing at the existence of an animal/barbarian/primitive vs a moral type
- where these reflect the state of an individual's mind.

The animal/barbarian/primitive is often seen in those who seek money, power
- and are successful
-- where the moral type mind is seen in people who ask questions and try to make sense of the world.

I'm trying to suggest that these 2 types:
Overt psychopath <- immorality (courting inequality) <- 'incomplete mind' -> morality (striving to equality) -> Wisdom
- that people sit within the spectrum of overt psychopath and wisdom
- and that the closer to overt psychopath - the closer to a material world centric view the individual will have.

At the overt psychopath end of the spectrum we'll see the relationship between man and woman as all about power.
And an incapacity to entertain more abstract views of reality ie preference for something simple like 'rich people good genes' 'poor people bad genes'
- which was an opinion which was held.

It isn't a million miles away from 'poor people bad genes bad disease' and indeed poverty does appear to result in an enrichment for disease
- but it isn't the quality of the disease
- it's the level of distress which the rich place the poor under which leads to an increased suscrptibility to every form of disease.

Not 'rich people good genes' - but rich people drive disease in poor people through enforcing distress ie hard physical labour enforced to pay for rentier capitalism.

The woman who works with me and does the cleaning cannot even afford - with a full-time job on minimum wage - to pay rent on the smallest property in the area.

That's the society we have constructed - and it is the rich which are responsible - though it's better to suggest that it's the latent desire for money/power which is alive and kicking in the poor - where the blame need be laid.

SB_UK
05-24-14, 07:57 AM
It's interesting that in the natural world - the Queen generally performs some socially useful function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality).

Whereas in human society the Queen (all of our silly human monarchies) is the most parasitic of species members.

Human beings make little sense.

I don't see how a species with the emergent property of mind can balance the mind (a tool which confers immorality) with a society WITHOUT any.

Since all people in their right mind, 'd be driven out of it - when forced to witness, support, engage in behaviour without sense.

Does your head in, it does.

SB_UK
05-24-14, 08:11 AM
The point being - that how can a feminist support 'Queen' ?
It undermines all other females as subserrvient to Queen.
That won't do in a model of equality for all people.

But we're not all equal.

No - but you're just playing with the word equal.

Maximal diversity (all people not being equal in one sense of the word) is possible in a society which enshrines equality (in another sense of the word).

So - using words - we can describe the simultaneous desire for as unequal and as equal as society, simultaneously, as possible
- just word games.

Anything limiting (for the most part the material world) - shared -> EQUALITY
Otherwise go knock yourself out -> INEQUALITY

Distinguish yourself on a level playing field.

People need a fair system, before people are free to express themselves individually
- otherwise your playing field is another man's means of starvation avoidance.

-*-

Genes do not cause disease, inequality (through people not having minds) causes a characteristic set of changes in gene expression result in disease.

It's your immoral society, stupid.(noting the correspondence between immorality and stupidity - by definition immorality won't make sense)



noting the correspondence between immorality and stupidity and desire for inequality

noting the correspondence between immorality and stupidity and desire for inequality and anti-feminism

noting the correspondence between immorality and stupidity and desire for inequality and anti-feminism and material world centric views such as genes -> cause -> complex disease refusing to accept that that ('defective genes' close to exclusively result in all common diseases) was a flawed hypothesis from the outset.

Just wasted time whilst more and more people became sicker.

SB_UK
05-24-14, 08:53 AM
Development of (love/desire of) equality through a personal enquiry into morality (alongside application within an aligned social environment) as root to alleviation of suffering.

Otherwise - how can a person feel good about themself ?

Just a sense of shame.

You can't evade your own mind.

SB_UK
05-24-14, 11:30 AM
Development of (love/desire of) equality through a personal enquiry into morality (alongside application within an aligned social environment) as root to alleviation of suffering.

Otherwise - how can a person feel good about themself ?

Just a sense of shame.

You can't evade your own mind.


From today's newspaper

It's almost impossible to argue with the ideal of a decent society; hard to disagree that some aspects of the one in which we live are frankly obscene. But then "don't be evil" was always a great idea. It's just that putting it into practice seems to be so much harder than anyone thought.http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/21/mammons-kingdom-britain-david-marquand?commentpage=1

Survival essentials by contributing personal effort in co-operatives.

The entire rotten capitalist society will then collapse as all of the abused wage slaves working on minimum wage simply withdraw themselves from the workplace.

That's all that's required.

meadd823
05-26-14, 04:02 AM
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s206/tlr823/my%20personal%20graphics/nomeasureofhealth.jpg




Humans have never made sense to me, the fact I am one of them makes even less sense. Not much help I know but it is an honest answer.

someothertime
05-26-14, 04:44 AM
Your brave to use the F word SB...

This seems like two probable realms to me....

1. Genetic impacts *longer tem* i.e. say over 3-5+ generations of older parents / genes... and the potential for one parent to have greater bearing on gene development.

and

2. External focus in early childhood.... or IMO, lack of tribe.

Materialism oversimplifies your viewpoint..... in that, it's the macro behaviors we are addressing here.... IMO, the greater / equal influence is the lack of something that existed, pre modernism ( last 30 years or so ).

SB_UK
05-26-14, 04:59 AM
Your brave to use the F word SB...

This seems like two probable realms to me....

1. Genetic impacts *longer tem* i.e. say over 3-5+ generations of older parents / genes... and the potential for one parent to have greater bearing on gene development.

and

2. External focus in early childhood.... or IMO, lack of tribe.

Materialism oversimplifies your viewpoint..... in that, it's the macro behaviors we are addressing here.... IMO, the greater / equal influence is the lack of something that existed, pre modernism ( last 30 years or so ).

Something worth striving for ?

Post-WWII - there was a spirit of planetary reconstruction - a memory of how bad things can be.
Collapse of the Berlin Wall brought the bloc 'war' to an end - but what then followed was another war - WWIII was all about warfare employing money (kicking off in earnest in the 80's).

This really was to become a world war in every sense of the word - no continent was untouched.

The period from the 80's to now - has been all about the ascendancy of warring corporations - destroying (just as standard warfare does) our collective environment.

Planetary reconstruction post WWII was conducted under a monetary system - really BIG mistake.

We need to do the same again - though this time, under a voluntaryism principle.
Nobody should be compelled to do anything - opening the door to all human beings applying innate creativity in what they do choose to do.
Hey hey now can't you see - there's NOTHING (or nobody**) here that you can call free.
The ensuing world could be incredible.

**
From elsewhere on the album
'He said now this is where I come when I want to be free, but he never was in his life-time and these words he said to me'-*-

IMO, the greater / equal influence is the lack of something that existed, pre modernism ( last 30 years or so )Protest ?
Dissent ?
Principle ?

The last 30 years (1990 - now) have been an ever worsening replica of the 30 years before (1960 - 1990).

General news stories now suggesting that we about to see previous generations living longer and better lives than current/future generations.

Species in trouble.

All cured by voluntaryism.

-*-

IMO, the greater / equal influence is the lack of something that existed, pre modernism ( last 30 years or so ) Togetherness centred on pair-bond and extending out to end at global social structure formation, global society, global community.

So - missing - society, togetherness, motivation to help others, higher ideology, a desire to realise beauty.

And in its place - there's just self-destructive hedonism as people inject money, power, heroin into their veins and watch on as an insatiable hunger (for more) grows.

someothertime
05-26-14, 08:05 AM
common struggle

when individual interests are placed first and foremost, the balance is skewed.

lack of extended family and community which one could argue is a product of consumerism / materialism...... AND no common enemy / war / tribe struggle.... gives "space" for a human to grow unbalanced behaviors....

perhaps... many modern global conflicts are mere "acting out".... i.e. on a societal level.... the absence of a common enemy leads to such activity because on a strangely primitive level.... one needs an enemy / struggle.

i believe societies ( and families ) with non-self-centric-structures and/or fights.... have a baseline...... the absence of these leaving no baseline but the one we provide in our minds. people who conform easily...... have adequate logical control and macro behavioral prowess.... assimilate..... those whose person relies on external drivers are orphaned, left to create internal drivers, structures and fights.

SB_UK
05-26-14, 08:43 AM
General news stories now suggesting that we about to see previous generations living longer and better lives than current/future generations.


http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s206/tlr823/my%20personal%20graphics/signaturebackgrounda.jpg

Now, experts are warning that those kinds of preventable health conditions could make the current generation the first to live shorter lives (http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2012/05/largely-preventable-health-conditions-hamper-u-s/) than their parents. eg
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/04/478249/obesity-life-expectency/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTg-q6Drt0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTg-q6Drt0)

reach for the dead = reach for the zombie materialist parents of the next (dissenting) generation.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s206/tlr823/my%20personal%20graphics/nomeasureofhealth.jpg

-- money buys only self-loathing.

SB_UK
05-26-14, 08:51 AM
.... one needs an enemy / struggle.

There is very much an enemy within - one which the flight to wisdom dispels - and which can be considered and simply a reward system.

The love of money, power, sexual power relations.

Transcend that reward system and you're free.

There's no other external enemy - our enemy lies in our own incompleteness of mind
- and as long as it remains in place

- we can do no good.

SB_UK
05-26-14, 12:06 PM
quote=;1652166
There is very much an enemy within - one which the flight to wisdom dispels - and which can be considered and simply a reward system.

The love of money, power, sexual power relations.

Transcend that reward system and you're free <- The puritan ideal

There's no other external enemy - our enemy lies in our own incompleteness of mind
- and as long as it remains in place

- we can do no good.

-*-

One idea permeating all of human history.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Enemy-Within-Straight-Defeat/dp/0875522017

One idea we really need to understand.

SB_UK
05-26-14, 02:14 PM
Your brave to use the F word SB...


Thing is that if we define perfect equality for all - we will through consequence satisfy the feminist.

The 'feminist' however that wants the same remuneration as male, the same representation as male in power hierarchies, though, is not going to be happy.

There won't be any remuneration in the approaching world.
There won't be any power hierarchy.

Be careful what you wish for ! Because it might just come true.

ruby.149.42
06-17-14, 08:36 AM
I've been looking at this thread evolve for the last few weeks and it's been pressing a lot of buttons for me .. touching "something" so very deep but can't quite put my finger on it as there are many questions. I still can't get the words together for everything swirling around my addled brain but will give you what's come up so far:

I've always considered myself a very strong feminist .. but it's less about challenging BOY vs GIRL but more about how the US/THEM dichotomy is central the root of THE PROBLEM (so many of THE PROBLEMS). I've always felt in my bones that gender is 85% socially derived and that EVERYONE would fare so much better if we were allowed to nurture the female and male parts of our psych which we ALL have in differing amounts. Current marketing world means we'll never have a chance to discover our natural temperamental gender nature because right from birth .. even from BEFORE birth, massive gender expectations are foisted upon us which are these days pretty much inescapable:



Oh they're being so selfish not telling us what gender! How on earth can we buy gifts for the baby shower if we don't know the colours !!??



[to baby boy] : you're such a BIG STRONG BOY!!

Oh stop! Boys don't cry! (toddler) Don't be a wuss! (primary school). Don't be a GIRL (teen - ultimate insult)





[to baby girl]: ooohhh you're such a pweetttttyy little girllllll. Aren't you soo cute!

Oh STOP being such a bossy girl! [preschooler] You really need to quieten down a bit or you'll have no friends! [primary] … She's a LESBIAN [high school]





Anyone danced through the pink and blue aisle of a toys r us lately? It's all SCREWED!


I reckon I've read just about every argument there is going on nature and genetic predispositions there is going and I buy few of them so far. Absolutely there are differences (to be celebrated!) .. but not to the extent that this ridiculous point in history would have us believe .. and it's getting WORSE every day and it's incredibly divisive. What I believe is that a complete, "self-actualised" if you will, human being can only come into being if they are can be at 1 with both genders of their psyche (otherwise = incompleteness). We all have BOTH and children need to be taught the beauty of that and to nurture them both. I reckon the most extreme girly girls would do wonders for themselves if they were introduced to and embraced even an inkling of the strength they’ve been steered away from birth. Ditto for the blokiest bloke .. inside them all is a degree of softness that they would benefit enormously from connecting with. Mental evolution anyone? Point is it's not about turning yin to yang etc .. just everyone taking a little step towards the centre (middle road anyone ?) that is there for all.

SB this (though possibly not your intention):

There's no other external enemy - our enemy lies in our own incompleteness of mind

To me, that incompleteness of mind is when we are stuck in natural selection aim for each gender which surely we should be able to move away from in 2014? Can we not evolve mentally? i.e., NS = male : FIGHT (seek resources to feed offspring / potential offspring [money / power?]); F**K (form as many potential offspring as possible) .. . Females: FLIRT - acquire the potentially healthiest / best resourced male to provide for her young and ACQUIRE - .. some predisposition to seeking resources (maybe the gathering form of the FIGHT?). Probably a recently (very sadly) added female one of FORM : cut / slice / dice / bleach your body to try and look younger which historically was impossible. Ay carumba.

Nasty compounding problem as far as I see it that is sending many hurtling backwards and may potentially bring the world to it's knees: greedy unethical corporates entire marketing campaigns (hedonia / rewards driven) aimed squarely at these primitive NS tendencies i.e., male (FIGHT) : (boy / blue inclusive of various forms of screen and media aggression) --> brain rewiring desensitised to violence / prosocial behaviour and ***** (p*rn - destroying massively desensitising sexual reward system --> bundle together into HS increased FIGHT behaviour towards females .. counter-evolutionary direction) .. And females: ACQUIRE & FORM .. All seriously destabilising mental health across the board and taking further from eudaimonia potential. (In your terms - keeping us bound in material world?). There is so much more to be said but it's late and I'm tired.

Maybe that reward system you keep talking about SB is really the genetic predilection of the (genetically typical) male world? If so, is that reward system, the basis of hedonia and the female reward system (nurture / care of others) that of eudaimonia? That being my reading of this thread .. I will take this thread as a great complement to females :) - yes? As I believe what you are ultimately saying is that path towards Eudaimonic female (hand in hand with Eudaimonic male) is the path of mental evolution. We just need to get the hedonia focused greed / capitalist taxa off on that probe to Mars.

I love this thread.

SB_UK
06-19-14, 08:27 AM
I've been looking at this thread evolve for the last few weeks and it's been pressing a lot of buttons for me .. touching "something" so very deep but can't quite put my finger on it as there are many questions. I still can't get the words together for everything swirling around my addled brain but will give you what's come up so far:

I've always considered myself a very strong feminist .. but it's less about challenging BOY vs GIRL but more about how the US/THEM dichotomy is central the root of THE PROBLEM (so many of THE PROBLEMS). I've always felt in my bones that gender is 85% socially derived and that EVERYONE would fare so much better if we were allowed to nurture the female and male parts of our psych which we ALL have in differing amounts. Current marketing world means we'll never have a chance to discover our natural temperamental gender nature because right from birth .. even from BEFORE birth, massive gender expectations are foisted upon us which are these days pretty much inescapable:



Oh they're being so selfish not telling us what gender! How on earth can we buy gifts for the baby shower if we don't know the colours !!??



[to baby boy] : you're such a BIG STRONG BOY!!

Oh stop! Boys don't cry! (toddler) Don't be a wuss! (primary school). Don't be a GIRL (teen - ultimate insult)





[to baby girl]: ooohhh you're such a pweetttttyy little girllllll. Aren't you soo cute!

Oh STOP being such a bossy girl! [preschooler] You really need to quieten down a bit or you'll have no friends! [primary] … She's a LESBIAN [high school]





Anyone danced through the pink and blue aisle of a toys r us lately? It's all SCREWED!


I reckon I've read just about every argument there is going on nature and genetic predispositions there is going and I buy few of them so far. Absolutely there are differences (to be celebrated!) .. but not to the extent that this ridiculous point in history would have us believe .. and it's getting WORSE every day and it's incredibly divisive. What I believe is that a complete, "self-actualised" if you will, human being can only come into being if they are can be at 1 with both genders of their psyche (otherwise = incompleteness). We all have BOTH and children need to be taught the beauty of that and to nurture them both. I reckon the most extreme girly girls would do wonders for themselves if they were introduced to and embraced even an inkling of the strength they’ve been steered away from birth. Ditto for the blokiest bloke .. inside them all is a degree of softness that they would benefit enormously from connecting with. Mental evolution anyone? Point is it's not about turning yin to yang etc .. just everyone taking a little step towards the centre (middle road anyone ?) that is there for all.

SB this (though possibly not your intention):

There's no other external enemy - our enemy lies in our own incompleteness of mind

To me, that incompleteness of mind is when we are stuck in natural selection aim for each gender which surely we should be able to move away from in 2014? Can we not evolve mentally? i.e., NS = male : FIGHT (seek resources to feed offspring / potential offspring [money / power?]); F**K (form as many potential offspring as possible) .. . Females: FLIRT - acquire the potentially healthiest / best resourced male to provide for her young and ACQUIRE - .. some predisposition to seeking resources (maybe the gathering form of the FIGHT?). Probably a recently (very sadly) added female one of FORM : cut / slice / dice / bleach your body to try and look younger which historically was impossible. Ay carumba.

Nasty compounding problem as far as I see it that is sending many hurtling backwards and may potentially bring the world to it's knees: greedy unethical corporates entire marketing campaigns (hedonia / rewards driven) aimed squarely at these primitive NS tendencies i.e., male (FIGHT) : (boy / blue inclusive of various forms of screen and media aggression) --> brain rewiring desensitised to violence / prosocial behaviour and ***** (p*rn - destroying massively desensitising sexual reward system --> bundle together into HS increased FIGHT behaviour towards females .. counter-evolutionary direction) .. And females: ACQUIRE & FORM .. All seriously destabilising mental health across the board and taking further from eudaimonia potential. (In your terms - keeping us bound in material world?). There is so much more to be said but it's late and I'm tired.

Maybe that reward system you keep talking about SB is really the genetic predilection of the (genetically typical) male world? If so, is that reward system, the basis of hedonia and the female reward system (nurture / care of others) that of eudaimonia? That being my reading of this thread .. I will take this thread as a great complement to females :) - yes? As I believe what you are ultimately saying is that path towards Eudaimonic female (hand in hand with Eudaimonic male) is the path of mental evolution. We just need to get the hedonia focused greed / capitalist taxa off on that probe to Mars.

I love this thread.

Really really interesting post !

Back in a little while to look at the post properly.

Just quickly - the hedonia/eudaimonia connection is precisely what I'm getting at.

It's really important to define which realm we should strive to be as unique as possible, and which level we should strive to be equal to one another.

We've kinda' gotten things backwards as people try to become as unique as possible through money (ie earning more than others) whilst what matters - a personal expression of creativity aimed at supporting social wellbeing (ie improving the species' lot) is lost.