Cassiopaean Sandbox > Tickle Me
Men are just happier
tom32071:
The original post in this thread was made as an attempt at humor. I found it humorous and don't see the big deal here. Are the comparisons all true? Not necessarily. Some are, but not all. It is a concept generally held, that's all. Like saying that all blonde women are stupid. It isn't true, but it's a perception that is held by a lot of people.
Like saying that all blue eyed people are smarter than people with eyes of different colors.
Humor can be found in almost anything, but just because something is funny doesn't necessarily make it true and also it doesn't necessarily mean that you actually believe it. :huh:
anart:
--- Quote from: tom32071 on March 25, 2012, 07:14:12 PM ---The original post in this thread was made as an attempt at humor. I found it humorous and don't see the big deal here. Are the comparisons all true? Not necessarily. Some are, but not all. It is a concept generally held, that's all. Like saying that all blonde women are stupid. It isn't true, but it's a perception that is held by a lot of people.
Like saying that all blue eyed people are smarter than people with eyes of different colors.
Humor can be found in almost anything, but just because something is funny doesn't necessarily make it true and also it doesn't necessarily mean that you actually believe it. :huh:
--- End quote ---
Hi Tom, it might be worth re-reading the entire thread, keeping the purpose of this forum in mind.
SAO:
Women and men are different - but also the same in many respects. The key is to understand what the differences are - not conditioned differences, but natural ones. With such heavily conditioned gender roles instilled since childhood, it is no easy task to sort out nature from nurture in this case, and perhaps even Gurdjieff didn't fully appreciate the extent of the suppression of women that existed for thousands of years.
Here is the same quote from G in its greater context:
--- Quote from: Gurdjieff ---“Nature of woman is very different from that of man. Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development – to go to Heaven as you say – is with man. Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman ever; what you call ‘aspiration’. In life, man use this thing – this aspiration – for many things, all wrong for his life, but must use because have such need. Man – not woman – climb mountains, go under oceans, fly in air, because must do such thing. Impossible for him not to do; cannot resist this. Look at life around you: Man write music, man paint pictures, write books, all such things. Is way, he think, find Heaven for self.”
When someone did object that the sciences and the arts were not, after all, exclusively confined to the world of the male, Gurdjieff laughed: “You ask questions about woman artist, woman scientist. I tell you world all mixed up, and this true thing I say. True man and true woman not just one sex – not just male or female. True human is combination of these things: active and passive, male and female. Even you,” he made a sweeping gesture covering all of us, “sometimes understand this because sometimes you surprised when you see man who feel thing like woman, or woman who act like man; or even when in self feel feelings proper to opposite sex.”
--- End quote ---
As with all things, when someone says something, we must determine if it is true before we just accept it. How do we know that Gurdjieff was correct when he said "man is machine"? Because we can see it through self-observation and through studying the mind in modern psychology. How do we know Gurdjieff is wrong when he said woman does not have aspiration? Prime example - Laura herself, but if you need more, just look around this forum, look around this planet - some things have changed since Gurdjieff's time, and where repression was relaxed, creativity and aspiration bloomed. So again - evaluate each statement on its own merit. Do we see examples of women with aspiration in this world? Yup.
Now if you want to go further - notice Gurdjieff said "Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman ever; what you call ‘aspiration’". So if you feel like accepting what Gurdjieff says without thinking for yourself, fine, then don't pick and choose. Accept that he said "woman knows everything" just as readily as you accept that women don't have aspiration!
But to go even further... since you can't prove that women don't secretly know everything and just act like they don't to not make the men feel bad... and you *can* easily prove that they are just as aspired as men because we see it all over every day, you must inevitably conclude that they are, at the very least equal to man, but if G was right about their knowledge, then they are vastly superior!
It's very easy to reach any conclusion we want if we pick and choose our data, if we accept some things without question because they fit our own preconceptions, and question other things that don't fit those preconceptions. If you want to be objective, you must start questioning everything regardless of who says it.
Edit: Re-reading the above quote from G, the last paragraph seems to indicate that a "true human" does not prescribe to sharp gender roles too much. So perhaps when G said a woman cannot develop herself without a man, he meant that she needs to develop her male side just as the men need to develop their female side to be complete in both cases. Men also cannot progress in the work without developing their emotional center, for example.
When he talks about men climbing mountains and "doing" all this stuff, he's not talking about developed men, I think. Understood in context of his other writings, he's talking about machines. The clue to that is that he said men cannot resist the urge to do these things, which sounds like a mechanical quality rather than conscious choice to me.
So while it is all up for interpretation, perhaps he wasn't even speaking in absolute terms - but within the context of a certain level of development.
truth seeker:
--- Quote from: daco on March 25, 2012, 02:46:49 PM ---I dont want to support mine own thoughts-reasons, I dont even feel or think that women is inferior it is just when I read some authors I want to understand why someone think in that way. And then I got confused. Then it comes instinctivly feel that some views can be true, but I not accepted it I dont believe in it, that views just stuck somehow in me, it is hard to explain. Without accepting it some of them are in me.
I want to clear one think, for me women is not inferior and it is capable of doing the work. It is just when it comes to philosophers and other authors I just dont understand why they share similiar views and in that sense ponerization is one simple answer to all of that which is not sufficiant because it is too simple. There must be more to it.
--- End quote ---
It's one answer, but it's not "simple". I really think that when you get the opportunity, you should read Political Ponerology. It explains the complexities involved which may help you understand more fully.
Also, we are all ponerized to one extent or another - it's not just you. Understand?
--- Quote from: daco on March 25, 2012, 02:46:49 PM ---That what you wrote is not true. I just wanted help, Ive see that I m maybe on the wrong track.
--- End quote ---
The best way to get help is by asking, which you've done. What would be helpful to you now is to take the advice given to you seriously and do some reading so that you can be more knowledgeable. The knowledge has to come from your own efforts though - not mainly from the efforts of others. The choice is yours and so far it seems that you haven't chosen to utilize the many recommendations given.
--- Quote from: daco on March 25, 2012, 02:46:49 PM ---Yes, I read some books from r.list but not too much, from Laura I didnt read Secret History, 9/11 The Ultimate Truth, High Strangeness, Amazing Grace but I read others books like one of them an important one Wave series.
I "understand" English when read it but when it comes to real understanding for me it is difficult it is slow process. For example that new book from Kahneman I have in English but for deeper understanding of it I prefer to wait when that book will be translated to my native language.
--- End quote ---
If you realize that you're having difficulty understanding, then why argue as if you know for sure? One first step to learning is to realize that we don't know anything for sure. Take your time, do some reading. Really put yourself into it and question your current assumptions. From there anything is possible and a truly fruitful conversation can begin.
Approaching Infinity:
--- Quote from: SAO on March 25, 2012, 08:37:15 PM ---
--- Quote from: Gurdjieff ---“Nature of woman is very different from that of man. Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development – to go to Heaven as you say – is with man. Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman ever; what you call ‘aspiration’. In life, man use this thing – this aspiration – for many things, all wrong for his life, but must use because have such need. Man – not woman – climb mountains, go under oceans, fly in air, because must do such thing. Impossible for him not to do; cannot resist this. Look at life around you: Man write music, man paint pictures, write books, all such things. Is way, he think, find Heaven for self.”
When someone did object that the sciences and the arts were not, after all, exclusively confined to the world of the male, Gurdjieff laughed: “You ask questions about woman artist, woman scientist. I tell you world all mixed up, and this true thing I say. True man and true woman not just one sex – not just male or female. True human is combination of these things: active and passive, male and female. Even you,” he made a sweeping gesture covering all of us, “sometimes understand this because sometimes you surprised when you see man who feel thing like woman, or woman who act like man; or even when in self feel feelings proper to opposite sex.”
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
I think the second bold part is important here. It seems to me that G is saying a true human has both the qualities of "man" and "woman", which he listed above. So perhaps in a "true human", the male aspect is the one who writes books, aspires, paints, DOES. It's the active principle, in a male OR a female. The female aspect is the part that already knows everything, the soul essence, the infinite potential, the ground in which aspiration takes root.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version