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.

 

[anart]

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.

Hi Tom, it might be worth re-reading the entire thread, keeping the purpose of this forum in mind.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

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:

“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.”

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]

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.

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?

That what you wrote is not true. I just wanted help, Ive see that I m maybe on the wrong track.

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.

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.

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]

“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.”

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.

 

[Palinurus]

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.

Couldn't agree more and I take it this must be the ground for a remark of the C's somewhere that gender as such doesn't exist in higher densities, or words to that effect.

 

[ana]

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.

Couldn't agree more and I take it this must be the ground for a remark of the C's somewhere that gender as such doesn't exist in higher densities, or words to that effect.

I think this is more clearly explained by Laura here, in talking about how the different hemispheres operate and more...

The Wave Chapter 23: Lucifer and the Pot of Gold or The Quest for the Holy Grail of No Anticipation

 

[Palinurus]

Thank you for that link, Ana.
I just refreshed my memory while reading it again and it perfectly fits in here. Thanks again for this reminder, much appreciated.

 

[Nienna]

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.

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?

Daco, reading the suggested materials in this thread would really help to answer your questions.

Programming is not only done in our dna, it is programming of the mind and emotions from infancy onwards. Reading Caricature of Love will show you how men - and woman - have been programmed by psychopaths to, well basically, hate women. It has been passed down from generation to generation by our parents, friends, relatives and books we read.

Also reading Laura's article on SOTT Witches, Comets and Planetary Cataclysms will really help to show you how women, especially strong women, have been feared and loathed by men and so hunted and gotten rid of.

If you really want to know about these things, then reading the material suggested in this thread is very important. It's up to you to put in the effort to learn.

 

[Laura]

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.

Yes, true enough in the world we have grown up in. Unfortunately, like Bible myths, just having these ideas around means that a whole lot of people will buy into them. MOST people do not have any discernment. We like humor around here, but there are some kinds of humor that just aren't funny to everybody. In this case, fully half the human population on this planet have been subjected to these stereotypes for millennia and frankly, I had enough years ago. I suspect that most of the women on this forum agree with me and the men should be sensitive to that.

 

[tom32071]

sigh, I suppose that you are right. I will refrain from joking or commenting about sensitive matters. Sorry. :(

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

sigh, I suppose that you are right. I will refrain from joking or commenting about sensitive matters. Sorry. :(

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:

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.

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:

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]

or in other hand Marvin Meyer:

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]

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:

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.'"

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.

How do you differenciate between true instinct and programs?

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:

"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.

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]

When it comes to women, left and right hemisphere share similiar view on women no matter of being separeted.

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.

My point is that left and right hemisphere consciousness no matter of being separeted share somehow similiar view.

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.

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.

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!

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)

Then you're 'not even wrong' because you're coming to a conclusion based on unproven assumptions.

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:

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.'"

How separete wheat from the chaff when it comes to that views :/

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.

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.

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.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

sigh, I suppose that you are right. I will refrain from joking or commenting about sensitive matters. Sorry. :(

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.