↪Athena There were huge civilizations across the americas. Disease wiped them off the face of the planet. I thought you were talking about the transition to sedentary life? Technology came hand in hand with changing to day-to-day living. Larger populations survived by storing information - hence the use of quippos in the Incan empire. In Australia and Africa there is some theories surrounding mnemonic techniques and ritual as means of passing information on.
Cannot for the life of me recall the name of the woman who makes a case for that - I’ll look it up tomorrow.
Neither conflict nor cooperation alone beget technological advancements. I cannot imagine a matriarchal society to have ever existed - in the sense of female domination - because men would just just say ‘no thanks’ when they disagreed and the women could do what? Nothing.
An egalitarian society in the past? Sure! There is evidence of this today in hunter gatherers and suggestions of large settlements in the Ukraine that were recently discovered where there doesn’t appear to be any tell tale signs of a ruling body.
I’d recommend looking at He’s a pretty solid source, but I’ve no idea if he’s focused on gender roles in any of his research papers. — I like sushi
You so remind me of my younger sister and a commercial that was popular in the 70tys. We are totally creatures of our cohort! The very clear split between my cohort and the following one is shockingly sharp. My cohort wanted careers, we just thought we should stay at home and raise our children first. My cohort's plan was to return to college and complete our degrees when the children were old enough to leave alone, then we would help finance the children through college, and we raised our daughters to get the college education and use it. :chin:
When it comes to being mothers, I don't think there is a big difference, but the timing of everything is different. Those who follow my cohort attempt to do it all like the woman in the commercial. :lol: And while you resent your mother's choice, did you rely on her to help with the children? Someone has to care for them and didn't you value your mother as that person? That is precisely the topic of this thread. Are you going to resent her or value her and honor her and appreciate her sacrifice as much as we appreciate those who give their lives war? Some of us think nothing is more important then prepare in the young in our family for life. The career is something individuals do for themselves. Caring for the family is not about ourselves, it is about FAMILY, and this the topic of this thread. You wouldn't be my sister, would you? :lol: — Athena
All facts are potential information. There are just degrees of feelings of certainty coming from more or less convincing evidence. Peter’s thought at noon will probably never be revealed, but it’s not impossible. Maybe there exists a voice recording of a speech he made at the time or maybe some god will reveal his thoughts to you in a dream. What is actual information for you, the existence of the computer you think you are looking at right now for example, is just supported by stronger evidence. Close your eyes and you no longer have any information that the computer is there; it’s just potential information. — Congau
No, I haven’t really been talking about our actions at all. Our actions are irrelevant to existing objective truths, but I have never said that the opposite is the case. What we think is the objective truth certainly influences our actions. We act from the best of our judgment concerning what exists using any hint of information we deem relevant. If I imagine that Peter harbors negative thoughts about me that will change my behavior towards him, and since I live in a society, I have a lot more potential information to take into account than the lonely savage needs to consider. Granted.This is where we differ. You seem to think that we discard this uncertain information as irrelevant prior to determining our actions, — Possibility
No, I haven’t really been talking about our actions at all. Our actions are irrelevant to existing objective truths, but I have never said that the opposite is the case. What we think is the objective truth certainly influences our actions. We act from the best of our judgment concerning what exists using any hint of information we deem relevant. If I imagine that Peter harbors negative thoughts about me that will change my behavior towards him, and since I live in a society, I have a lot more potential information to take into account than the lonely savage needs to consider. Granted.
But whatever we do, it will not change the truths that already exists or existed. Yesterday at noon Peter had positive or negative thoughts about me and nothing I do can change that now. How he will feel tomorrow is not the issue here because that is not an existing truth. — Congau
Objective truth exists. We don’t know it, but we keep guessing and those guesses result in action and thereby creation of new objective truths. But the truths that existed in the first place can never be changed simply because the past cannot be changed. Our actions (and thoughts) cannot change existing truths. The glass exists at noon. I can break it at one second after noon, but it is still true that it existed at noon. — Congau
I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forums. — Athena
The old world order is family order. The new world order is Prussian military order applied to citizens. Family order was started by grandmothers thousands of years ago, but a modern Military-Industrial Complex(Eisenhower's term for New World Order) is far more powerful and some have argued we are like ants and this is our natural organization into a huge anthill. This is not the individuality you seem to value, and I think it is very male. I hope you have a glimmer into the possibility that there is something you are not aware of and it is much bigger than women's rights. What do you think is the ideal institution for rearing our children?
We were about family and community in a very human way that is now threatened. — Athena
I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP. But I am getting bored after being on lock down for more than 5 weeks.
I have been reading most but not all of the thread, and have come to a simple conclusion. The first line says it all.
"male dominated forums"
The forums are not all male dominated because the ladies are banned or forbidden to enter.
So why are they not here?
Because most of them have no interest in being here.
So do not blame the blokes, blame the rest of the feminists that cannot be bothered to join.
Sorry if I upset you again. — Sir2u
Again with the old and the new...
My personal perspective certainly doesn’t value individuality - not sure where you got that from...
The ant colony analogy values surrendering consciousness to the organisation, which then strives for domination, autonomy and influence in relation to the external environment. To illustrate with cultural references, it’s similar to the difference between ‘Independence Day’ and ‘The Arrival’: are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat, to survive as the dominant entity, or are we collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves?
And again, I don’t find it accurate to divide this along male-female lines. There are many women who are striving towards maximising or ‘restoring’ female domination, autonomy and influence by opposing male domination, autonomy and influence as a direct threat. I don’t see this as the answer - it’s just more of the same...
The best situation for our children is not an institution at all - it is an ongoing creative process that increases awareness, connection and collaboration, despite anticipating experiences of pain, humility and loss - for our children as well as ourselves. The ancient ‘grandmotherly’ concept of societal order corresponds to this, but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use. — Possibility
but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use. — Possibility
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex | New ...
https://www.newscientist.com › article › dn14146-gay-brains-structured-lik...
Jun 16, 2008 - The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain ... Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women. — newscientist
Please tell me more about "I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP." — Athena
If a person is ignored what would be the motive for continuing? — Athena
Wasn't that warning almost as effective as being banned? — Athena
I am not into blaming males, but I think there is a reality of differences that prevents women from participating. — Athena
I’d like to be clear about what you mean by “potential” in potential information. (It seems to me you are giving it a double meaning, but I may be wrong.)
One sense would be information that is totally inaccessible but still theoretically knowable, like the location of a grain of sand on the planet Pluto in the year 1843.
The second sense is potential as in not yet determinable.
I observe Peter’s shifty look and conclude that he will attack me tomorrow. Potential information = the truth value has not been realized yet, it belongs to the future.
If you mean the first sense, I agree that potential information is objective truth, but not if you mean the second sense since information about the future does not exist now. (Unless you include the possibility of supernatural clairvoyance, which you haven’t mentioned.) Indications about what might happen in the future does not objectively count as truth about the future. Oil prices have been falling lately and that seems to indicate that oil will be cheap next week. Strong indication, sure, but the truth value of next week’s cheap oil is in no way to be found inside the statement about recent oil prices. Even if the prediction for next week comes true and the causal connection between the two events is obvious, the two pieces of information would not be identical even in hindsight. — Congau
Democracy based on Greek and Roman classics is "collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves". The New World Order is "are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat". That is Hegel's the state is God and everyone should be made to conform to the state. However, we can all be as different as the aliens of outer space, as long as we obey policy. — Athena
About the war of the sexes. I am really not interested. What I care about is honoring the Mother and the caregivers and teachers and all the people who work in food production who do not have the means to stay healthy because we exploit them and keep them in poverty. I want mothers to be honored and supported in their honorable occupation of the very important task of rearing children. I will point out, rarely did Star Trek have anything to do with family. Talk to me about the value of the full-time homemaker, okay? What she did for the family and the community and what she has to do with liberty! As John Locke said of kings thinking of their masses as children, they are unlike parents who expect their children to become independent. There is a limit to how long we are under the authority of a parent, unlike living under the authority of policy that is different from the authority of a king, only because kings die, but the bureaucracy above us, does not die. — Athena
Us guys are not to blame for everything you know, most things maybe, but not all. Over the many years I have been around there have been plenty of female posters. And possibly quite a few that were females but kept it a secret.
Not many of the serious posters of either gender check to see the gender of the person posting, they are more interested in the content of the OP and the value of the ideas and arguments provided.
If you want people here to take you seriously, give them something serious to think about and discuss. This thread has gotten over 200 posts, not bad. — Sir2u
But if we only obey policy, then we can’t really BE as different as the aliens of outer space. Our capacity for diversity is then limited by policy. — Possibility
Individualism is a relative perspective. To be ‘individual’ is to be indivisible: an isolated and homogenous entity. As it suits us, we can conform to an individual state as God, or an individual interpretation of God, or an individual relation to God - but rarely simultaneously without contradiction. It is the diversity and relations between these structures (which are themselves relational) that reveal the illusion of individualistic perspective. — Possibility
The ideal of democracy and of Greek and Roman classics is not the same as the reality of it. Greek and Roman societal structures excluded, isolated and ignored elements of diversity within themselves that failed to conform to their limited structural perspective of ‘the state as God’. They were certainly not above distinguishing themselves from an external threat. — "
I get that we increase our understanding of the diversity and relation between two ideas by applying them to our view of the world, but I think we need to be careful of the tendency to then individualise and evaluate the complexity of reality according to this idealised binary. It doesn’t take much effort in looking closer to see how reality transcends whatever labels we attribute to it or categories we separate it into. — "
I get what you’re saying - as a mother, as a homemaker, as someone who promotes education and is married to a teacher. I understand the value of the full time homemaker, but I also understand that this value is not exclusive to the role of the full time homemaker. I understand how important and honourable the task of rearing children is, but the honour and support we give this task is not just for mothers. And I understand that we structure society on a gross misunderstanding about raising children: that it’s about the conflict between authority and independence. — "
The role of child rearing is often seen as a paring back of dependency in relation to developing autonomy. But the ancient ‘matriarchal’ view would suggest that autonomy and independence are illusions - we are all eternally interconnected and interdependent - and whatever power or influence that anyone thinks they possess comes from their relationships. To that end, we should raise our children neither to be independent and challenging authority nor to be dependent and submissive, but rather to have the courage to always increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world. — "
and at the whole women is not equal to men, that is an fact. but still this childish topic has gained so much popularity. indeed it is fun to see when people have nothing serious to do they create some problems and then try to solve them. — tavaa
Our contingent ideas about the world are different because the roles we play in the world.
Men compete and females nurture the kids, of course there are exceptions to this rule like any man made rules.
Though females used to not make the rules only to adhere to them.
People are trying to change this rule I don't understand why?
But in a non-dominated men world I assume things will be different, but not in this world!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rq9OvaJyRc — MathematicalPhysicist
At no point can you determine the truth value of potential information. (I now use your definition, which of course is as good as any chosen definition although it was not at all what I had in mind.) The truth value (the binary true or false) will only appear when the potential has been fulfilled, at which point it is not potential anymore.At this point, I am unable to determine the ‘truth value’ of a particular statement of fact or event (that he will attack me tomorrow), but I can relate what potential information I do have to an objective view of truth without needing to collapse it first into a specific four-dimensional event — Possibility
How can you call this an objective view of the truth? Any prediction is guessing, and guessing, if anything, is subjective.I can relate what potential information I do have to an objective view of truth without needing to collapse it first into a specific four-dimensional event — Possibility
If you understand this is a conflict between authority and independence I am thrilled to come across someone who understands that and I would really appreciate your explanation of that! — Athena
:scream: I need a tranquilizer because what you said is so upsetting to me! If I came down with coronavirus I would go to the hospital and tell them just to make me comfortable and help me die, because I remember a different reality from the one we live in and I do not like this one. Your arguments seem to assure we remain powerless to do anything about the change. I keep arguing because it is my hope awareness can empower us. — Athena
Is that the advice you would give the German people as the nazi took over? Is that a stand for liberty and justice? I can see a higher morality in what you said and it would be great if we all got there, but Trump makes me doubt if we can get there peacefully. Not only is this pandemic traumatizing but I am really traumatized by how Trump is handling it and his followers marching around with rifles! I have been arguing my basic arguments for many years and kind of like not worrying about global warming because it isn't that bad yet, Trump and his followers seem to be proving me right and I don't always want to be right. It is that bad now. — Athena
No statement about future events has any truth value, but all that concern past events have one. No matter how much potential information you have and how much you can imagine, a truth value can never be achieved, in other words you can never know what will happen in the future (even just a few seconds into the future). — Congau
↪Athena That block of text reads more like a diary entry (not what I come here for). You seem distracted by other discussions so I’ll leave you to it.
Maybe a new thread with specific aims would encourage more focused discussion. — I like sushi
No. I said that I think this is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to raise a child - it teaches them that they must choose a side in all ongoing conflicts between authority and independence, which ultimately contribute to as much suffering as they strive to reduce. All you’re doing as a parent is achieving a minimal appearance of force shift in an unwinnable war. — Possibility
There is no resolution in a conflict between authority and independence because they are not polar opposites. While it appears as if increasing one decreases the other, it is illogical to think that by maximising one we eliminate the other. The dichotomy is false. Authority is contingent upon understanding one’s interdependence. When clear authority falls away, interdependence is necessary. Likewise, independence is contingent upon knowing where authority lies. And when our independence is lost, we look to authority. So, you see, it’s not a conflict at all, but a dynamic balance. Authority and independence are inversely contingent upon each other. This what the yin-yang symbol means. — "
Again, you seem to be reading only to react. I am not saying that we are powerless to effect change. Awareness can empower us, but only insofar as we also strive to connect and collaborate. And I was specifically referring to how we raise our children, not how we react to a current situation. It’s not about observing change and fighting it, or about choosing EITHER authority OR independence. It’s about anticipating the trajectory and doing what we can to adjust it away from potentially destructive outcomes.
You are right about me reacting, but that is not all that is happening. I also notice I am experiencing a lot of confusion, and perhaps gaining self-awareness. Compared to you, I am a poverty level street fighter, who does not understand how to things civilly. I do not like this self-awareness. I don't think this is a matter of one us being right and the other wrong. I think it is a matter of money and social position. I think I thought more like you before the 1970's recession. Before that rececession I was one of those "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people". Then I I became one of "those people" as are many people today becoming one of "those people" because of the economic crisis we are in and one of the wonderful things about this economic crisis is learning the people who work in meat processing plants do not have the means to stay healthy and not only are they a higher risk of dying, but they could contaminate our food. Now we care about them. Throughout our history people have risked their lives fighting for a better standard of living and people in your apparent position have not understood the fight. Why fight instead of being nice and reasonable? My mother did not have the economic opportunity women assume today, and my grandmother who was a devoted teacher for a good 60 years, was put in the welfare side of the nursing home where people were fed after the more affluent people were fed. I am thankful by then her mind was gone and she didn't realize she was now considered a charity case.
— "
Idealistically speaking, if everyone aimed to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, then situations such as Nazi Germany or Trump as President would not have occurred. Liberty and justice seem like noble ideals, but keep in mind that in reality justice hinders liberty, and liberty hinders justice. Hitler and Trump are more products of their society than heinous individuals. The Nazis were handed authority, as was Trump. It is the extent to which we have all been ignorant, isolated and exclusive that we have brought about these atrocities - including environmental destruction. — "
I understand your despair. Not long ago, I was highly idealistic, certain that there was one perfect way that the world should be, and that inasmuch as we were not living in that ideal and couldn’t even determine it, the world was broken. But I realised that in order to create the world the way we think it should be, we need to first accept the world as it is - not to see it as broken, but rather as a work in progress. And eventually I realised that there was not one perfect world to strive towards, but a range of possibilities, and within that a range of potential, and within that my existence as a unique manifestation in relation to all possibilities. So I strive for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with all possibilities, and in doing so I raise my children to do the same and I contribute in the same way to the lives of others, knowing that what I’m striving to create is beyond any potential I can manifest in one ‘individual’ lifetime of experience. — "
At no point can you determine the truth value of potential information. (I now use your definition, which of course is as good as any chosen definition although it was not at all what I had in mind.) The truth value (the binary true or false) will only appear when the potential has been fulfilled, at which point it is not potential anymore.
No statement about future events has any truth value, but all that concern past events have one. No matter how much potential information you have and how much you can imagine, a truth value can never be achieved, in other words you can never know what will happen in the future (even just a few seconds into the future).
(I’m here using the normal loose understanding of “know” which assumes that knowledge is possible. When we say “I knew it would happen”, we don’t mean it literary, but when we say “I know it happened”, we do.) — Congau
How can you call this an objective view of the truth? Any prediction is guessing, and guessing, if anything, is subjective.
Language and common experiences are of course collective items but it would be a rather artificial stretch to call them objective. — Congau
What are the four dimensions? — Congau
I will try again. Are you agreement with education for a technological society with unknown values replacing a liberal education for good moral judgment and defending democracy in the classroom? — Athena
Oh my, I have a different understanding of history. I thought the American Revolution was about liberty and ending the power of England to rule in North America, and we fought two world wars, to end tyranny and defend democracy. The idea that authority and liberty are not polar opposites may have truth but it can not be the whole truth? — Athena
Now I agree with the opening statement of that paragraph. :cheer: However, there is no justice without morality, and tolerating immorality is destructive to civilization, so it can not be tolerated. To ignore immorality is as destructive as ignoring a pandemic, and a society focused on profit instead of morality is doomed to self destruct. This is not as either/or as your examples of this or that. How does justice hinder liberty? Justice must support morality and only highly moral people can have liberty. Life is full of trinities and trinity manifest infinite possibilities. — Athena
You are right about me reacting, but that is not all that is happening. I also notice I am experiencing a lot of confusion, and perhaps gaining self-awareness. Compared to you, I am a poverty level street fighter, who does not understand how to things civilly. I do not like this self-awareness. I don't think this is a matter of one us being right and the other wrong. I think it is a matter of money and social position. I think I thought more like you before the 1970's recession. Before that rececession I was one of those "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people". Then I I became one of "those people" as are many people today becoming one of "those people" because of the economic crisis we are in and one of the wonderful things about this economic crisis is learning the people who work in meat processing plants do not have the means to stay healthy and not only are they a higher risk of dying, but they could contaminate our food. Now we care about them. Throughout our history people have risked their lives fighting for a better standard of living and people in your apparent position have not understood the fight. Why fight instead of being nice and reasonable? My mother did not have the economic opportunity women assume today, and my grandmother who was a devoted teacher for a good 60 years, was put in the welfare side of the nursing home where people were fed after the more affluent people were fed. I am thankful by then her mind was gone and she didn't realize she was now considered a charity case. — Athena
I don't think you have lived in poverty and experienced doing so with no one to help you. In the 60's I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that no one born white and middle class could experience. We could run away from home and play at poverty, but as long as the economy was good and we had parents to call for help, we could not really experience poverty. It took an economic crash to teach me the meaning of poverty and how meaningless it is. — Athena
Yes, truth value is a binary true or false.Can I take this as an agreement that what you refer to as ‘truth value’ is a binary true/false? If so, then at no point can we objectively know this ‘truth value’ in a statement, even when it’s in the past. — Possibility
When I agreed that facts are potential information, I thought we were using another definition of “potential”. (I took it to mean “knowable”.) Now that you have defined it as “the capacity to develop, achieve or succeed”, I can no longer agree. (I don’t care how you define it as long as your definition is clear to me so that I can use the same one.)You agreed that facts are potential information — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.