Cassiopaean Sandbox > Tickle Me
Men are just happier
tom32071:
sigh, I suppose that you are right. I will refrain from joking or commenting about sensitive matters. Sorry. :(
SAO:
--- Quote from: tom32071 on March 26, 2012, 03:23:49 PM ---sigh, I suppose that you are right. I will refrain from joking or commenting about sensitive matters. Sorry. :(
--- End quote ---
I think commenting is ok, this forum is set up to research and discuss all manner of "sensitive" material. It's the joking that's the issue. It reinforces the stereotypes and laughs at something that men who don't respect women came up with, something that our society (unlike say the blond thing) actually thinks is true. I've spoken to many guys about what their opinion is on the differences between men and women, and they are usually seriously convinced of many of the things on this list, which is rather sad.
daco:
No it doesnt fit completely - how to say it, in all directions - it is just too simple, one piece of puzzle without hole picture, that is how I see it, we dont have all pieces.
I will try to explain that they doesnt fall to the right or left hemisphere consciousness (and consciousness like free will is really problematic to understand too)
From Wave chapter 23:
--- Quote ---Now, this is enormously important to grasp: religions, philosophies, beliefs in general, through which we view the world and by which we interact with the world also fall to one hemisphere or the other in terms of how they activate our consciousness. There are teachings that place emphasis on the sensual right brain, and there are teachings that place emphasis on the abstract, imaginative left brain.
--- End quote ---
When it comes to women, left and right hemisphere share similiar view on women no matter of being separeted.
Left Hemisphere Consciousness=Theology: Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greco-Roman Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam. - They share one view on women (in many aspect different from religion to religion) similiar with right hemisphere.
Right Hemisphere Consciousness=Mysticism: Taoism, Tantrism, Yoga, the “Mystery Traditions,” Gnosticism, Alchemy. - similiar view on women can be found here too.
For example.
In non-canonical Gospel of Thomas (right hemisphere consciousness) which is not accepted by the church there is sayings like:
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter heaven's kingdom.
ps. interesting is that Gurdjieff share similiar view to that and many others too.
My point is that left and right hemisphere consciousness no matter of being separeted share somehow similiar view.
And there is one important thing, from my understanding; philosophy cant be nor in left nor in right hemisphere, it is somehow combination of both hemisphere consciousness.
Here is what some academics say about Gospel of Thomas.
Elaine Pagels elaborates:
--- Quote ---Other gnostic sources reflect the assumption that the status of a man is superior to that of a woman…. Some gnostics, reasoning that as man surpasses woman in ordinary existence, so the divine surpasses the human, transform the terms into metaphor. The puzzling saying attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas…may be taken symbolically: what is merely human (therefore female) must be transformed into what is divine (the “living spirit” the male).[7]
--- End quote ---
or in other hand Marvin Meyer:
--- Quote ---Some scholars have recognized a similar sort of misogyny in other ancient and late antique sources, such as the Gospel of Mary and Pistis Sophia, while others have been more optimistic in sensing that the saying in Thomas advocates androgyny or even the elevation of Mary.[10]
--- End quote ---
And that is only for Gnosticism. There are for sure others in right hemisphere who share similiar view with that of Gnostics.
My question is: how if two hemispheres are separeted and therefore they see world in different perspective, how they share similiar view on some idea or ideas which is not coming from left nor right? In this case its view on women.
Only answer for that which comes to my mind is that we are programmed (total slaves to that programing of DNA, horrible idea and that idea or ideas comes from that DNA which is programmed)
What is your take on that saying in Gospel of Judas, not agree or agree? I know that a lot of you want agree on that. Personaly I am undecided and in that sense I m sitting on two chairs and dont know which is the right one.
Here is interesting part, I remember Laura once said something about birth, that it is not good when it comes to The work, if person focus on own develop that bringing children in this world is not somehow "good".
Here is the same thing from that gnostic gospel:
--- Quote ---79 A woman in the crowd said to him, "Lucky are the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you." He said to [her], "Lucky are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Lucky are the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk.'"
--- End quote ---
How separete wheat from the chaff when it comes to that views :/
EDIT:
@Ana
This is my last post on this thread, I understand what you mean by pushing over and over same thing again and again. I dont want to push over and over again and this would be my last post on this thread. I have work to do now.
--- Quote ---How do you differenciate between true instinct and programs?
--- End quote ---
It is difficult, my understanding of programs is that programs are more on the intelectual side of man. It can be on emotional side too. When it comes to instinct I understand it that in that side programs can be too for example; what we eat, when it comes to eating bad food which is bad for us.
True instinct, I think that true instinct is very hard to explain or understand, when it comes to that I really dont know.
I read all your comments and that which you sugest to read. Now I must focus on that because for me it is really a huge lesson to learn it this life when it comes to view on women. Dont want to be on the wrong track, I want to really understand and separete wheat from the chaff when it comes to that question even if my capability of understanding or intellectual and emotional develop is under attack by some of views that are somehow stuck in me. I just feel instinctivly. I think that is because of DNA.
That fight is in me atleast two years (views on women), I feel it in me and for me it is really hard. I struggle how G would call it "between yes and no" and I dont want that I goes in wrong direction when it comes to that. There is one excellent quote by Gurdjieff when it comes to it, that horrible fight:
--- Quote ---"Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of 'friction,' by the struggle between 'yes' and 'no' in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is. But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to 'crystallize.' But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation. 'Friction,' the struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' can easily take place on a wrong foundation. For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the 'fear of sin,' can evoke a terribly intense struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.
--- End quote ---
I think that I atleast explain somehow in which position I am. This is why I write on this topic to see that I m not going into such direction and that is why I wanted some kind of help. That is it.
Now it is up to me like you said.
Approaching Infinity:
--- Quote from: daco on March 26, 2012, 06:24:33 PM ---When it comes to women, left and right hemisphere share similiar view on women no matter of being separeted.
--- End quote ---
The link to that chapter was given in the context of men and women each having 'male' and 'female' qualities. (And as you'll see from the Pagels quote, the same idea is there, too.) It was not used as an argument that a particular view of woman is simply a matter of which hemisphere is functioning.
--- Quote ---My point is that left and right hemisphere consciousness no matter of being separeted share somehow similiar view.
--- End quote ---
You're right on one thing: it's not so simple. The discussion of right and left hemispheres in the Wave, in my view, is more of an attempt of getting across two different ways of thinking/seeing. They are not rigid categories. Just because 'gnosticism' can be said to be a more 'right-brained' way of thinking, that does NOT mean that all gnostic writings are automatically 'right-brained'. (You may want to read Ian McGilchrest's "The Master and the Emissary" for the latest research on brain hemisphere functions.)
You seem to tend to see things in black-and-white terms. "It's either this or this, no in between." Something you may want to keep in mind when you self-observe.
--- Quote ---My question is: how if two hemispheres are separeted and therefore they see world in different perspective, how they share similiar view on some idea or ideas which is not coming from left nor right? In this case its view on women.
--- End quote ---
You're assuming that every so-called 'gnostic' is purely right-brained. You're also assuming your interpretation of their writings is correct. You could be wrong about both. The world is not so simple and cut-and-dried. A very wise person may still believe in some nonsense. A very ignorant person may have a small bit of great knowledge. And 99% of the most esteemed scientists and philosophers may also believe in nonsense. Thinking isn't easy; it requires you to analyze EVERYTHING and take no shortcuts (e.g. "This guy is smart and seemed like a nice guy, therefore everything he believed is probably true."). You can't expect roast chicken to simply fly into your mouth!
--- Quote ---Only answer for that which comes to my mind is that we are programmed (total slaves to that programing of DNA, horrible idea and that idea or ideas comes from that DNA which is programmed)
--- End quote ---
Then you're 'not even wrong' because you're coming to a conclusion based on unproven assumptions.
--- Quote ---Here is interesting part, I remember Laura once said something about birth, that it is not good when it comes to The work, if person focus on own develop that bringing children in this world is not somehow "good".
Here is the same thing from that gnostic gospel:
--- Quote ---79 A woman in the crowd said to him, "Lucky are the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you." He said to [her], "Lucky are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Lucky are the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk.'"
--- End quote ---
How separete wheat from the chaff when it comes to that views :/
--- End quote ---
Again, it's been pointed out repeatedly that having children involves two people: a man and a woman. The idea that bringing children into such a world is a bad idea has been discussed before, but it has nothing to do with the views you've quoted about women.
--- Quote ---I read all your comments and that which you sugest to read. Now I must focus on that because for me it is really a huge lesson to learn it this life when it comes to view on women. Dont want to be on the wrong track, I want to really understand and separete wheat from the chaff when it comes to that question even if my capability of understanding or intellectual and emotional develop is under attack by some of views that are somehow stuck in me. I just feel instinctivly. I think that is because of DNA.
--- End quote ---
I think that programs are emotional by nature, and expressed through the motor center. It's like Pavlonian conditioning: a habit. "Feeling something instinctively" is more often than not just automatic System 1 doing your thinking for you, because 'thinking' is a lot 'easier' when it simply follows your programming according to what 'feels good' and matches with your previously accepted assumptions, conditioning, and preconceived notions.
Patience:
--- Quote from: tom32071 on March 26, 2012, 03:23:49 PM ---
sigh, I suppose that you are right. I will refrain from joking or commenting about sensitive matters. Sorry. :(
--- End quote ---
Hmmm... I think understanding why we refrain from practicing certain types of humor is even better than refraining. Many folks here could be described as having a gallows sense of humor from time to time, which I suppose is a bit like laughing when you would rather cry. The point is not so much to get in a state of mind where we label something as "sensitive" and then avoid touching it like it is a hot plate.
In terms of understanding why this kind of humor is at least useless, and possibly even harmful (though the discussions that derive from it seem to be educational), I would like to refer to the book "Redirect." It is discussed in the cognitive science board of this forum. In this book the author describes his narrative theory of how humans create internal narratives to make sense of there own actions to themselves and why this narrative theory might be an explanation as to why certain social programs work and others don't.
I can't attempt to explain the authors points here as that would simply be too much, but the thread on it is here:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25989.0.html
So... One reason we avoid this type of humor (other than simple consideration for others which in my mind is reason enough) is that we reinforce certain narratives about ourselves when we indulge in it. So it is not just a simple fact of having a laugh about silly stereotypes... It is actually reinforcing the narratives that allow such stereotypes and their destructive side effects to flourish.
There will always be people who do not care about self-transformation. This does not make them bad or stupid or whatever. However, a potential future society free (or more free anyway) of pathological influence will need healthy narratives for these people to tell themselves and transmit to their children.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version