I suggest this is either closed or move to the Lounge for both content reasons, and to avoid the inevitably adversarial exchanges if people respond.

Again, with respect, that is utterly absurd. An aggregate of more than 1000 first-hand experiences trumps yours. Sorry.

Absolutely indefensible verdict acquitting Palestinian Action 'protesters' of aggravated burglary and GBH which the judge should have thrown out immediately. This better get challenged and reversed - there is no possible way to have acquitted people who were filmed carrying out the offense they are on trial for. Juries can do this because of bias - but the judicial system is bound to correct this. It is legally untenable.

Further, disgusting that Jeremy Corbyn called this is a triumph for Palestinian action: If that's the case, you support terrorism and political violence. Full stop. Absolutely abhorrent stuff.

You posted a propaganda site.

I posted three peer-reviewed studies that you did not read.

You are not capable of a rational exchange on this, it seems.

these women have become like men — Questioner

I do not want women to act like men. — Questioner

I hope it's at least clear to you, based on two other poster's replies now, that you should probably be re-thinking the rather reductive and sexist way you're approaching women. It gives a fairly distinct feeling that you are not so much trying to support women, as trying to push an agenda of some kind.

t any rate these evil uses of religion say nothing about whether spiritual teachings are true. — EnPassant

You're not actually engaging with that which is being said to you.

In any case, no one said religion was evil. So this is incoherent.

With the greatest respect, you are entirely ignorant about that which you speak:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/?utm_
https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/challenging-old-assumptions-twin-study-reveals-surprising-connection-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis/?utm_
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38280572/

You are peddling long-debunked myths in support of I know not what. This exchange is pointless. But suffice to say, you should be humble and admit you don't know what you don't know, and that you now have that information.

The language seems quite happy to accommodate both IR and DR without hesitation. — Ludwig V

I would just agree, but I think you went wrong prior to this statement:

In one way, that's what we see if/when it gets into our eyes. In another way, of course, it is nothing of the sort - I see the sun. — Ludwig V

I agree. But the way I'm seeing things, the former is how things actually are, and the latter is intuition without analysis in the way "vulgar" was used in 18th/19thC philosophy. That's why I say that use isn't problematic, it just isn't all that relevant to us here.

But doesn't it follow that we should not equate the light streaming from the sun with a recording either? — Ludwig V

The difference seems to be that the light from the Sun has been in contact with the Sun. The light in the recording (of the game, just to clear away the wife's voice thing) does the same job for you. But the light never reflected off the ball field (or whereever). It was generated by a machine, which was interpreting electrical signals transmuted from light which did touch the ball field. So the difference doesn't have anything to do with your experience - they function the same in each example. If you watched the game on a five-minute delay (common, even for "live" broadcasts) you would be seeing something older when you looked at the window at the Sun. This does not sit well with the idea that the Sun is the direct one, and not the other. But I reject both, so that's cool.

The light arriving on earth shows us the sun as of eight minutes ago. So what? That still seems to simplest solution to me. — Ludwig V

"So what?" is definitely the simplest, easiest and least analytical conclusion. I also think it's true - so what? I don't care that my perception of hte Sun is indirect. This can cut both ways.

in a proper way that makes sense — Ludwig V

I don't really understand what you could mean by this. Plenty of definitions are flying about and we seem to be operating from stable definitions? Direct perception is the concept that first-personal experience is constituted by objects in the world.
IR is that this experience is constituted by mental images derived from sense data.

These both make sense and can be discussed. Could you say more about the issue you see?

But if you think about, our visual experience of the phenomena is perfectly compatible with both stories. — Ludwig V

Oh yes. If it wasn't as clear as I thought, this was one central tenet of that long reply. The stories we tell don't answer anything, which is why relying on semantics or word use to sort this particular issue out to me is quite unattractive. Possibly dysfunctional.

It's not a sovereign cure for all our ills. But it would help, I think, if it were more widely recognized. — Ludwig V

I certainly agree with this, but I do think you're giving less weight to the fact that people often actually do see literally different things. How we adjudicate about that sort of thing is always quite interesting, but I've had several experiences where someone I know to be totally sane remembers something completely different to me (a species of animal, for instance, as between a dog and a flightless bird, in one example I can recall). These are disagreements of interpretation - they are differing representations. Again, whether that's a malfunction is a jury issue and they're not back, to me.

No-one doubts that we hear the starting gun even though we only hear it some time after the race has started. — Ludwig V

I would respond the same way as when you mentioned the genral response to visual stimuli. That we don't usually think about it isn't all that interesting. People often do bring this up when timing thunder strikes.

Religions are corrupt. Supernatural beliefs per se don't cause damage, it is the corruption and misuse of religion that causes damage. — EnPassant

Well, no. What you call 'corruption' are logical inferences from texts. It's worth noting "religion" is not a monolith. Early Christian teachings were barbaric. Current islamic ones are (and were, tbf). They aren't the same thing in practice, so I understand what you're saying - but you again, missed the point. Supernatural beliefs motivate behaviour. This is a bad thing because any negative result can be attributed to the will of the supernatural. Its simply intellectually dishonest.

Read about Syd Barret from Pink Floyd and the damage these substances did to his mind. — EnPassant

I am big Pink Floyd fan, and know well Syd Barrett's story. If that's your rebuttal to peer-reviewed meta studies, I'm going to say you're trolling.

Your next response doesn't begin to come close to answering the question asked. Syd Barrett is not a psychic reality. You seem to not know anything about that which you speak.

They are like siblings or cousins to us. — javi2541997

That's fair. I don't think this is going to be quite the joyride you do, but fair.

Our health care system is already very screwed. It is not their fault. — javi2541997

LOL no, that's not the concern though. Making worse is surely not ideal.

They can only enter the voter rolls if they get the nationality and there is a reciprocal agreement — javi2541997

This appears to go for State and Regional elections, not Municipal elections (given my next sentence). I noted that after a year, they will meet the required residency time. I mean, I could still be wrong but clarifying what I understood.

may vote in municipal elections in Spain — javi2541997

Colombia is one of the most common countries of origin for this group? Seems to me they will be able to vote. Thanks very much for the elucidation.

Then stop reading. It's unlikely to be representing reality.

I'm not clear what "it" refers to in "it is not 'the object' in any sense". — Ludwig V

I am sorry if it was unclear - even on re-reading I can't see ambiguity.
The "it" is the image the said light provides you with. It isn't the object, one AU away from Earth, as it is. It is highly mediated, and actually isn't an object, but an experience (on my view, obviously).

Under normal circumstances, we have no hesitation about saying that we see the computer screen on which we are typing. And yet, there is a time lag between light leaving the screen and it arriving at our eyes. — Ludwig V

Yes. I have been over this several times now: idealization. I am unsure how much more lifting I can do on this exact matter.

But when we find cases where the time lag is longer, we don't quite know what to say. — Ludwig V

As far as I can tell, they behave exactly the same way - but the proximity gives less room for discussing any kind of 'error' in DR terms, whereas accepting that the light has gone through x space and time can leave open, prima facie, reason to think maybe something has gotten in that process and altered what's received (speculatively. That's not even in the IR position per se). I think the intuition most people feel is that the distance is merely a niggle on the farside of their metaphysical grapevine, but is slightly closer(i.e a more perceptible niggle) for the Sun example vs a computer screen a foot away. That is, unless one is discussing these things lol.

So far that the star has usually disappeared by the time we see it. — Ludwig V

Yeah, nice. That's largely the crux of why the initial account doesn't work for me. Hopefully there's some common ground to come.. .

I prefer to work the other way. — Ludwig V

Yes, and in practical terms, that's fine. There are many things we idealize in this way. The concept of "perfection" is an example. Its incoherent really, but we use it to describe many things without noting that we're not really calling x perfect. I don't think there's appreciable difference between that and our examples other than psychology.

There's no right way to go here. — Ludwig V

I'm unsure this is hte correct conclusion, but i massively appreciate your clarifications. I understand where we're askance, I think.
For me, we can simply alter the language (this is the semantic part!!) to actually reflect what happens. I've previously suggested these terms I think, even to you (I am not mentally reviewing htem for consistency right now, so feel free)

To look at: cast one's eyes toward an object (this doesn't require that we know what we're doing)
To see: To have a first-person phenomenal experience of that object (i guess.. whatever object).

I actually use these, most of the time because they far better capture what I'm trying to say at various times. I've responded to some objections to this thus:

"I have my objections, but the position, i take it, is that the mediation is not manipulative or deceptive so gives a 'direct' indication of that object one has cast their eyes too.

I don't quite have an issue with this other than calling it direct."

So, I think you have actually in a previous thread hit on something that speaks to me quite loudly. You said something like: indirect and direct at not apt for a discussion of perception.

I now take that to boil down to the "choice" issue above, meaning it does boil down to semantics. I see the attraction, but I still maintain metaphysics is trying to violate physics there and so its extremely uncomfortable and misleading to me. When I take the DR position to heart, I cannot make sense of what we empirically know about perception.

Many errors are errors of interpretation and so do not require positing any kind of intermediary object. That's what is left out of this debate. — Ludwig V

I don't quite know what you mean here - interpretation meaning the psychological reaction to the (let's call it, for my benefit) image presented in the mind? Or interpretation being what your eyes/brain does with the light? I can understand the former and not the latter just so clarifying. On thebasis it's the former, I think it's left out becuase its like saying a blindfold has much to do with perceptual directness. It's not the same question. Yes, we can misinterpret things we see, but whether this is the apparatus "malfunctioning" in a DRist way, or whether that's evidence of the mediation required to support an IR position seems jury's out to me. So, I can get on with that. Not the latter, though, as that would directly contravene the concept of DR as I understand.

But I think most people will differentiate between watching the game live and watching a recording. They will likely not talk of "direct" or "indirect", but still... — Ludwig V

Ok, good and I think I agree, but I doubt people will do this unless asked about it. At any rate, yes, good - I am simply extending this to all time-lag (using your early time) type experiences. The Sun is a good once because while its "immediate" in the sense of it not being recorded, it is eight minutes ago when you get it (the image, the Sun, the light, whatever you'd like to call it). The recording is data while results in light traveling to your eyes with x,y,z properties and presents you with the game which was played, let's say for fun, eight minutes ago. Same for the Sun.

Okay, so I'll step back and explain because I really don't mean to be obscure or confusing. — Hanover

I'm not taking you that way - but very appreciate any elucidations! Onward..

The problem arises when these two questions get conflated. — Hanover

Yes, I think probably for disparate reasons, I agree!

"Apple means having an experience of an apple." That ties meaning either to (a) the apple itself or (b) the experience you have of the apple. Considering you cannot tell me (a) what the apple itself is without referring to some sort of perceptual state (i.e. it is round, weighs 3 ounces, is red, etc.), and (b) you cannot open your mind and show me your perception, telling me the "apple" is (a) or (b) offers me nothing. You'll also note that (a) and (b) are metaphysical questions, not physical questions. As in, I want to know what the apple itself is if that's what you're using to tie it to meaning. — Hanover

This is confused ( to me), and possibly misleading(your a's and b's dont align so it's hard to respond directly). The phrase would not be "Apple is..." (again, to me. If you're referring to some third party arguing something I wouldn't, i prefer to not take that up).
The phrase would be "Seeing an Apple is...". That leaves an ability to describe that experience in terms of shape, weight, colour and all the rest without trouble and call that "the apple" meaning "the apple I see" or "the apple in my experience". But it leaves out the commitment that the Apple is either nowhere, or included in the experience. Now, I can see an objectin being that this intimates all of our experiences of what we want to call the same apple, are in fact, not hte same apple. I bite this bullet. They are caused by the same apple. I see no issue but discomfort/trying to idealize this into every-day language which I have no issue with either. But it is idealizing this concept (again, and always, in my view).

I agree, saying anything about "the apple" is meaningless if you mean to say anything about the actual object, out there in the world (other than what it causes in your perception - you could say "to the best of my knowledge, it causes *insert apt description based on experience*). We, in my view, do not have a word for it - just the concept - ding-en-sich.

I think can, and just did tell you (a.) I just don't think you want what I'm offering and you've given your reasons. My response is that the experience of *i know not what* is "the apple" I want to talk about. I don't talk about the other possible 'object', because I have no access to it. This seems totally coherent to me. You want to give a name to the cause, which I don't try to do and lean toward it not being reasonable to attempt. I tihnk we're at cross purposes in this moment.

Meaning is use, not meaning is the thing or the experience. — Hanover

Well, it has to be something - otherwise words would not have any meaning whatsoever - it's either tied to something we're describing in our experience, or outside our experience (logically - otherwise its describing nothing). I chose the former for many reasons. Use has no utility unless we know what we're doing. Which is, i content, describing our experience and for ease, or maybe just efficiency, we don't bother mentioning that its an experience of something. Which is wild, because we do use that phrase constantly to describe "my experience of going to the DMV" or whatever.

I find no discomfort it this epistemic gap. I am content to be motivated, moved and lead by what appears in my experience and not feel any need to look beyond it for that which, I contend, caused it. It's extremely interesting to me, and in places like TRP I will do so - but day-to-day and in general use, I wouldn't. I would say "I see an apple". It should be sufficiently clear that the semantics do nothing for the disagreement I'm seeing other than to clarify what each of us is trying to say. Your "the Apple" is not the same as mine, in this thread. But whether IR or DR, in general use they amount to the same thing but the commitment is silent (i.e you will say the same thing, and it will be meaningful, whether you take IR or DR on board). I think that does what the Searle types want to do right back to them and solves the problem with words. THe problem was the claim that the problem is with the words. Hahahaha.

When you say "I saw an apple" if you start to delve into what is the apple "really" and what part of your sensation was the apple and what wasn't, or if there even was an apple "out there," you've lost your way. You're talking in unanswerable and incohrent circles. — Hanover

If you say so. I think its pretty interesting to talk of these things - but one would not do this if they wanted the apple from the other side of the table. The above should speak to how this can be on either conception. I, personally, will, in passing, consider those things when I speak.

How do we use the term "apple"? Through
correction (“no, that’s not an apple”), mistake, teaching, rule-following. That's what I mean by "apple. — Hanover

Yep, and that's fine (although wholly incomplete, nothing turns on what's missing imo). It does not mean our use faithfully represents what's going on in the world or that could suggest it does beyond intuition. It rarely, if ever, does in practice. I do not know why this is so uncomfortable as a concept, when use dictates this type of idealization with plenty of words we routinely use. I guess I understand it, but don't know why. I get no discomfort from the concept that I can never access the world as-it-is. Why would i? It doesn't come up for me(joke, to be clear).

What explanatory power does it have to say it is the stuff that causes stuff when we can't know anything about the stuff. — Hanover

What does this have to do with truth? DR has no explanatory power to me. None. It explains how people get away with ignoring the empirical in service of a metaphysical commitment. If IR is the case, DRist will be saying exactly the same things. Their theory does nothing but reduce what there is to explain - without explanation. Which is why i would simply return to what I have just now gone back and bolded.

The indirect realist makes the ridiculous claim that even when you are at the Rod Laver Arena, you do not see the tennis — Banno

That is a fair charge, but the problem I see is you've said nothing that makes this ridiculous or what makes it ridiculous, other than that you're incredulous - which is fine and understandable as it violates intuition. But yeah, you do not see "the tennis" tout court, no. I don't think that's coherent, its just practical. As such, I think you are playing hide the ball with the term "the tennis" treated at length above under "the Apple". The semantics need work, but are not the problem.

There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran... — EnPassant

I think you may, for whatever reason, be disposed to misread these questions. I presume you're a theist?

The question asked was why is it this experience

Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God. — EnPassant

Not at all, and explicitly so. I take it you've not read any of his work? He's clearly not an angry man beyond watching religious zealotry illogically cause damage, whether personal or social. You may disagree, and that's fine, but his position isn't one of anger - quite clearly. He just has a rather reasonable gripe with supernatural beliefs because beliefs encourage/motivate behaviours. Many of which, from the religious impulse, are negative in his view (and mine, and millions of others).

What kind of damage are they measuring? — EnPassant

Physical, psychological, social, economic.

All of them. There's nothing missing that could matter.

These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. — EnPassant

You're going to need to say a lot more about what you mean by "psychic realities" and how they could be "dangerous" for this to fly anywhere. I also suggest you do not have a visual line on that bloke's mind. That is absurd.

1. We do not have direct visual perception of apples, only indirect visual perception of apples
2. We have direct visual perception of mental phenomena — Michael

Good point @NOS4A2 add that clarification to my recent reply. It is extremely succinct, thank you Michael.

So, first off, I used to be a huge Tolle fan. I had both Power of Now and A New Earth and read both several times. First: He is a terrible writer. I don't recall the vast majority of those works because they were badly organised and didn't provide much by way of systematic information. That's just technical, but may explain gaps in things I'm saying.

Tolle looks at the way ego involves formsof identification... — Jack Cummins

I thikn is his biggest error (ironically). He seems to operate from the premise that ego need be overcome. I mean, if that's your goal, sure, but for most practical goals a human could want, overcoming hte ego is extremely context bound: surrendering some autonomy in order to learn adequately, surrendering self-interest to raise children or a family more generally, setting aside one's ideological commitments in order to assimilate another intimate partner into one's life etc.. etc.. etc..

So, the error is not that Ego causes problems and must be overcome in some sense. But his thesis consistently returns to the idea that, as a species, we must transcend the concept of "i" to avoid suffering. Its repackaged Buddhism, but that side, it doesn't actually work unless you're at least semi-ascetic. Most people can't do this, including his fans.

For instance, "we are right, they are wrong" is factually true most of the time. It's just perhaps unclear who is who. But that doesn't mean we should forego attempts to arrange our selves in service of hte fact.

I feel that Tolle's ideas are important for thinking about human values and the future. — Jack Cummins

Probably true - but they are not en vogue any longer and I don't see a return to a mainstream meditative practice any time soon.

Is ego a stumbling block in philosophy? — Jack Cummins

I think the artificial shedding of 'ego' has lead to the modern phenomenon of absolute bullshit being published constantly. But humility is important - i just seriously doubt shedding humility is analogous to shedding ego.

Haha, fair enough.

What are you suggesting with this thread? It seems like its a bit of a conspiracy, which I have no problem with - but let's say its all legit - what then?

It is just that these persons are now documented to be hired legally in the labour marke — javi2541997

Its not just that though is it? There are concerns about an immediate influx of 500,000 legitimate names on voter rolls (Municipal - the ones that matter), health care registers, tax obligations (welfare, I guess) and in a social-democratic milieu that could be disastrous. They only need a year to meet what I understand to be the thresholds for these entitlements. There's also the potential for cultural clash, but I don't put as much into that as much who have reacted to it globally.

Semantics references meaning. The words chosen, syntax. Are we not asking what I mean when I say "apple"? You say no. I say yes. — Hanover

While I (think) fully understand why you're asking, no, not in this context unless you're arguing that you cannot use your perceptual experience to align your dictionary with mine - if that's the case, much more to be said But i didn't take that to be the case. Presuming we both know we're talking about the extremely similar experience as between us which can be gleaned from casting ones eyes toward an object (of a kind) which causes the experience we term 'seeing an apple'. I understand a lot of that will sound superfluous to you, but even on a DRist theory, this works as far as I can tell. You just think much of it is redundant. So far, so fair.

You ask "what causes the sense data that causes my brain to swirl so I end up with an apple qualia." — Hanover

I did not ask this. I offer an opportunity clarify, but I'll not respond because I'm bound to say something to doesn't make sense because I don't get it.

You want to know what the stuff is, but you can't provide it any attribute because attributes are qualia. — Hanover

I don't know what you're talking about here. I've not discussed this at all. What the object is which causes my apple experience isn't particularly interesting to me(in this thread, anyway).

The photon can't be brightness per your view, nor can the molecule have scent. That would be direct realism. — Hanover

Correct. And I answered in the negative when you asked if it was. So i'm a bit lost...

No, that's not it at all. The emperor wears clothes. — Hanover

Well, an abject failure to adequately grasp the argument is in play. From both you and Banno it seems. So I'm going to maintain that suspicion for now.

You act as if science answers metaphysics. Then is physics and metaphysics the same thing? — Hanover

While I get that this might be frustrating, you seem to be suggesting that metaphysics can violate physics and be valid. I don't agree.

Your desire to subtract semantics from "apple" — Hanover

Again, nowhere did I do this. I have explained, categorically, what hte meaning of Apple is to me on IRist grounds. I return to my suspicion.

that the Light is a data medium between the object and your eyes. That would be data derived from your sensual apparati (not a real word lol) - sense data”.

Yeah, sense-data is a mental thing. Light isn’t. Do you get it now? — NOS4A2

The quoted is true (on my view, of course). THe response isn't apt. We are not directly aware of light. We are aware that it is the only consistent conjunct to our visual apparatus even engaging with the world around ust. We call that light, because that works. We also call it "photons" when talking in some other way. You have gone to far in my view. The semantic puddle grows larger.

So yes, I get it and you haven't adequately addressed what I'm saying. You still want the light to be what you are aware instead of the (seems above, anyway) admitted sense data.

Theists believe in God for many reasons but the best reason is communion with God. — EnPassant

I can't argue without asking: What do you mean by 'best'? It seems to be the least reliable, the least amenable to interrogation, the least presentable and the least-strong in terms of any logical deduction. It can be explained in many ways besides an actual communion with a hypothetical God.

So what do you mean by 'best'?

Why anyone be unable to commune with God? — EnPassant

Well, God doesn't appear to exist for one - but you're also simply ignoring the argument. It doesn't matter why. The concept is that if people are unable to, you've said you wouldn't use the term defective - so, what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily?

I am not talking about medical issues I'm talking about abuse of these substances. The damage they do is well documented. — EnPassant

Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

Popular reporting, to be sure, but hte sources are reported statistical realities. I understand being resistant due to being ill-informed, but you are wrong on this count. Paddle boats do more damage.

I have been watching a documentary on the Children of God cult and pretty much everything would apply to the cult of capitalism/materialism that the West loves so much. — unimportant

I would simply disagree. There's a quote about tradition, that I don't quite 'believe' but it seems to apply to many things you're taking issue with: Tradition is experiment which worked.

Again, not a heuristic even, but the tradition of Christmas is such that all comers seems to get involved, even those with alter religious affiliations. I don't quite see what you do.

What is the light? Brightness? — Hanover

Photons which react to/arrange themselves in light of (heheh) the objects they bounce off until they hit our eyes, as I understand. But I don't know. I've not seen any photons in any sense we could be using here (from memory, anyway).

What is smell? Molecules in your nose receptors? Does the scent of the flower live in the molecule? — Hanover

No. It's an experience (that may or may not be termed a brainstate).

Does the scent of the flower live in the molecule? — Hanover

Um, no. That is my point and the fundamental problem DRist face, from my perspective: that hte answer to this unequivocally no.

Does it make sense to speak of anything that causes the magic except to say it causes the magic? — Hanover

I don't quite know what you're getting at so I'll just clarify that when i said 'magic' i was referring to the technical process of light being transmuted to an electrical signal which travels to the brain, where it is essentially arranged and constructed into an experience. So, I'm not sure what this question does..

So, what is the flower, the light, or the molecule I speak of? Let's say it's "really" a cat. Does that mean a flower is a cat? How can we know it's "really" a cat if I see flower, and how can I know you see a cat when I see a flower? — Hanover

You have fallen back onto the semantic argument, entirely missing the one being made here. What words we use are irrelevant to the question at hand, although it is quite important we at least think we're talking about hte same thing - and we aren't here.
If you want to call a flower a cat, that's fine. That doesn't change the ontological status of the object to which you refer, or our epistemic relationship to it. I think i adequately answered the conclusory question: You can't. We can simply compare our notes and see what works. That appears to be what actually happens, and how science runs.

How is it that we in fact speak easily of flowers all the time yet I have no idea what we're talking about here. — Hanover

Because we're trying not to idealize. I have been over this. I am beginning to think that this argument is so thin that two of the better posters can't quite wrap themselves around it adequately.

The point here is that meaning isn't dictated by cause. It's by use. — Hanover

Which has precisely nothing to do with whether we are directly aware of objects or not.

I think i'm answering both here:

The light itself is not sense data - the electrical impulses your eyes send to your brain is. This explains why light does not need a medium. It literally, physically, enters the eye. There is where the 'magic' happens.

In your rush to be domineering — Questioner

That you see being held to the fire on you views, being told unequivocally where you are going wrong(on hte empirical points - your opinions are your own) and being given well-sourced correctives as 'domineering' tells me quite a lot that I doubt you intended to say. That's ironic. If you had made an attempt to support this assertion, i'd give a very polite and direct response. But you did not. So here we are.

you seem to be rebutting things that I never said, or intended to intimate. I in no way mean to disparage or diminish the role of motherhood. — Questioner

I never said anything remotely close to this. You will need to quote me to continue that charge please. I responded exactly to what you said, with quotes - you have done the opposite, generally. That is incredibly ironic, that you have done exactly what this quote purports to charge me with.

What I think you have failed to understand is that one of my main points is that we need more of the feminine, nurturing, maternal instinct in our society. If we want a fair and just society, we need more of that. — Questioner

I have not failed to understand this (it was in plain English for one), or anything else you've said. You are consistently refusing to engage with responses to your clearly inaccurate claims. You could simply address those responses - but you do not. I'd have thought that you post here, as most of us to, to be challenged and discuss the topics we're passionate about in the realm of philosophy.

This has absolutely nothing to do with politics, attitudes, genders or anything but that you are factually incorrect to a degree that makes these specifics essentially unable to be adequately discussed (this rests on that, generally, i enjoy interacting with you. Otherwise I wouldn't care about this problem). If you refuse to accept that, it is not on me(or Ecurb). It is also a complete lie to say anything that intimates it's somehow me causing your refusal. You may choose not to engage. And that is fine. It's between you and no one else. But to suggest that because I've pushed back I haven't understood is intellectually bankrupt.

There are several misunderstandings in your reply, and I am not inclined to answer each one specifically. — Questioner

All but guaranteed to be because there aren't any substantial misunderstandings, and you are unable to respond adequately to challenges to your views. This is not an attack. It is an observation as it fits with all of your responses on substantive issues since we began interacting. I see absolutely no reason to trust that this is anything but a dodge, given the lengthy, substantive replies, including sources, I have taken the time to put together for you. You have put in extremely little effort and instead retreated into ad hominem. If I am wrong, please (genuinely, please) prove me wrong.

And you continue to post condescending, lecturing attacks. — Questioner

Again, if you think that what I've done is an attack, that suggests you are not ready to engage with challenges to your views. That also fits with your general tenor - extremely defensive with no substantive response. The reason for this, I couldn't know.

You remind me of the way MAGA treats Greta Thunberg. They tear her apart. Your reaction to me, and their reaction to her, is telling. In New York in 2019, Greta said - — Questioner

This is irrelevant, and an extremely bad-faith attempt to lump me in with some group you don't like, for reasons that are wholly divorced from anything happening here.
You continue to give other people's thoughts instead of your own.

If you continue to refuse to engage in anything that could be considered substantive, philosophical, honest or not-sexist you will be treated as such. I assume you'd do the same to anyone who came into a space you enjoy throwing shit at the walls and telling you it's a painting.

It's not her words, but what they represent - an idealist expressing her truth - that I want to point out. — Questioner

This is not a 'MAGA' thing. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/dkcjoa/cmv_greta_thunbergs_un_speech_was_poorly_executed/?

"Greta is not helpful or productive to the cause… a young girl from a wealthy family who skips school and galavants the world on a private yacht meeting with celebrities… will not convince anybody who’s not already on board"

Bhaskar Sunkara, Naomi Klein and several other prominent thinkers on "her side" also critiqued her speech because it was ridiculous. It was out of touch, performative, ineffective and structurally irrelevant - not because she's female (not to mention hypocritical and plain stupid, in terms of PR). Refusing to accept that critique of your idols can be made in good faith is extremely damaging. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out an idealist being a petulant child publicly. Any comments focusing on her sex are abhorrent. I've not seen them, though, I'm just wholesale agreeing. Otherwise, nothing suggests there's anything wrong with multiple people coming to the same conclusion on a fairly cartoonish public performance. That You see this differently doesn't support your assertions about other people.

So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill! — Questioner

That's probably one of the better responses I've seen to it. And I dislike most things Trump has to say about most things. This one was pretty tempered. Although, I suggest if you are taken to believe Trump is a pedophile you will (reasonably) read a lot more into anything he says about minors. I don't (based on evidence).

Virtually none of these types of exchanges ring with any credibility, given that each time you are proven to be factually incorrect, you simply ignore it and move on to ad hominem. I'll continue to engage you as long as you continue to engage me, but i'm not going to treat you like the toddler you seem to want to be treated as. I'll pushback where something is demonstrably untrue, and I will essentially call your bluff when you retreat into ad hominem. An honest interlocutor would welcome this. I suggest, again, to have a think about why your threads of this kind get very little engagement.

That's exactly what it implies: that the Light is a data medium between the object and your eyes. That would be data derived from your sensual apparati (not a real word lol) - sense data. This doesn't mean you have to accept this description, but that is what it implies quite plainly. Others avoid this problem in fun ways.

That this is being missed is odd to me. Is it the case that you accept the facts and prefer to call them a description of Direct Realism (i.e that it doesn't amount to a "sense data" story)? That's fine, I just want to be clear.

Haven't read the thread, but this doesn't seem interesting or controversial. There's two answers:

The institutional degree; or
An image purposefully made by applying paint to a medium.

Seems to capture everything. What obviousness have I missed?

The landlord had a paternalistic relationship with the people living on the land, which traces back to Rome and the importance of the Father, and is related to our Father in heaven. — Athena

I think this is probably an unfinished analysis. The desire for paternal connection (and protection, let's not forget) appears inherent in any culture, because it must remain stable. This then get abused in situations of coercive control (even some modern work arrangements fit this bill). But I don't think it's fair to lay the human desire shown in that type of arrangement contextually derives from the concept of God. Perhaps, the other way around makes more sense as at some point, there are no men who can protect you from certain beasts or hostile out-tribes.

But it certainly seems like at times, this was a motivating factor in thinking it was some benevolent activity for sure!

LOL wondered how the Notifications were working.

I had in mind the ordinary ways in which we realize we didn't see what we thought we saw. — Ludwig V

Right. I've been considering exactly this is recent days - I think there's a profound difference between, say, glancing quickly, and having the incoming data run-together because it was received so fast (and you see, for instance, a blur that indicates a situation which doesn't persist once your eyes are trained on the object/s) - which I think you're describing (or, this type of 'error') and one where your mind functionally cannot distinguish between the object and a suggestion about it. That famous image with colour lines, but is black-and-white is a good example. Even if we're going to admit "redness" is inherent in an object somehow, that example shows us that our experience of redness does not rely on an object outside of us to obtain, but on our internal interpretive processes. I am sorry if this isn't directly on point, but it seems clear to me "error" comes in different kinds, and the one I mean (related to the latter example) cannot be adjudicated by further looking at the object: It can change from red to grey as I see fit, in some sense. I am not bound by the object to see it as a certain colour in that case.

I'm seeing light from the sun that carries information about it as it was eight minutes ago. — Ludwig V

Right, right. Ok fair enough to further sharpen - I think this, for me, is a fairly smoking gun concession. That isn't "the Sun" besides the idealized use of "the Sun" which we tend to use. Which leads me to something from another exchange:

...and yet you saw the tennis. Thank you for such an apt example. The indirect realist is the one insisting that you never saw the tennis, — Banno

This is 100% semantic and doesn't touch the problem. I think its possible your description of hte Sun there lands us in the same position: If that, to you, is 'direct awareness' I don't understand the claim. It is not "the object" in any sense - it is light ferried across one AU, bringing with it information about the Sun. We call this 'seeing the sun' because its easier and better for "getting on with it".

We don't argue about whether "watching the game" on recording is direct awareness of the game, or the recording (well, it seems to me we dont?). I don't quite see a difference here.

Well, perhaps I over-stated the point. I can see the reason for doubt but don't think that it carries much weight. — Ludwig V

Ok, ok, fair enough. I definitely overstated my repsonse, so sorry about that. This seems fine to me.

Hahaha, definitely agree there - but that is why the Golden Rule has never seemed practically coherent to me. It induces one to violate other's wishes, on it's face.

That seems to be another way of saying those who are aware, are aware of something real. — EnPassant

It is not anything remotely close to that. It is exactly what it says: The suggestion that if God is not real, an appeal to experience is meaningless. Given that this appears to be the only confirmation of God adherents can provide, it seems damning - but that wasn't my suggestion there.

I would not use the word defective. — EnPassant

Then the suggestion that that experience is somehow real can be dismissed. If it's not a defect to be unable to commune with God, everything we know about God is nonsense.

You clearly have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are referring to when it comes to psychedelic experience. Transcendent psychedelic experiences are more effective than religion in ameliorating both long-term trauma and addiction issues. And that's just a random comparison. You're simply making claims that are unsupported.

Maybe it is more about re-educating society, especially men. — Questioner

Yeah, but that's literally fascist talk. It also rests on you assuming everything you've said is right. That is clearly not the safest way to go intellectually, and in practice is more liable to getting you killed or imprisoned (not you personally, but to go forth with some sociological position without recourse to even doubt is generally not conducive to goodness in my understanding). I also note that you've been given at least some information that should have you in doubt about the universality of your position. If it requires telling millions, perhaps billions, of other women they're wrong, or need to be re-conditioned to not desire what they desire (that is hte logical inference here - not words in your mouth) then maybe you should rethink that approach?? I certainly would.

No, but they are human with the usual human drives for self-autonomy. — Questioner

I don't think even you quite understand what you're talking about here: plenty of women do not want self-autonomy in hte way you are talking about it. Freedom from abuse, yes, in almost all cases (there are some weird people out thre). Freedom from voluntary submission? You're barking up the wrong tree. Would you like my wife to explain to you how and why she feels, thinks and desires what she does? I'm sure she'd be happy to set you right. This all smacks too strongly of the horrific shit Simone de Beauvoir liked to say:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Oh no!! Don't give the poor women the choice!! They wont do what i want!! It's anti-feminist.

No, just looking at the history. — Questioner

This is objectively, inarguable not the case. You are literally suggesting a set of social behaviours change and many of htem are ones women actively choose to engage in. If you were just looking athe history, all you would be doing is describing situations you think you've seen play out. You're not doing that. You're prescribing. As you did in the first quote I've used in this response. Its not in question that you're suggesting a set of beliefs be enforced, and you've laid out the beliefs clearly.

I have told you of at least one complete sane, normal western woman who would laugh at your position. Maybe address some of the criticisms rather continuing to wax lyrically. I wanted a discussion, rather than fictions. You're not really engaging anything substantive by posting mythologies and poems with some flowery thoughts attached.

The narrative most influencing the bent of the Western world for the last thousand years is tipped toward the masculine, rather than the feminine. — Questioner

That's definitely semi-true. This is definitely a totally overblown way of saying it, but you're not totally wrong. Perhaps there's something here... but to then ignore the inherent value continually upheld (albeit, essentially against their will... not what's in question right in this exact part) for women, and their inherently important roles and contributions is a mistake I think. It's historically wrong, anyway.

Reclaiming the balance between the masculine and feminine qualities (that characterizes the ancient wisdom) shifts us out of the patriarchy, to a more truly “free and equal” society. — Questioner

I think when you're resting on terms like "the ancient wisdom" you're not really credibly approaching a real problem with a view to a real solution. Can you say what you, personally, mean by "Free and equal"? That may help.

The Bible (men) rewrote the feminine story. — Questioner

No. The bible continued a story that had be going on for at least a few thousands years already. This is an oft-repeated falsity. The 'feminine story' - what does this refer to, in your mind?

The ancient wisdom was lost; the heart of the feminine was lost. — Questioner

Right. I'm sure you can at least see why this isn't moving, even if effective wording.

This requires that women reclaim their voices, and that men listen. — Questioner

That is all we have heard for a decade - and that's a good thing, no doubt. You aren't a man, so you do no get an opinion this, apparently. You're just not listening if you disagree (this is in jest, stress-testing that awful logic).

by Speaker Johnson — Questioner

Great. Are you suggesting that one or two examples here represent either a patriarchy, some illustration of the other couple of billion people we're speaking about or something else? Because a couple of examples of an Evangelical Christian pressing his religious lines is pretty pithy support for hte thesis you're putting forward. I'm not even suggesting he's the only example. Point stands.

We often find that Indigenous cultures retain the ancient wisdom — Questioner

No. We don't. We've been over that one. It seems like you're running on popular, romantic ideals about 'indigenous' cultures which not only don't hold up to scrutiny, are directly destructive of an accurate, fair representation of complex pre-colonial cultures. I take it you've not actually gone into any scientific/socilogical/anthropological work and looked instead at pop socio and activist mythology framing? I'll try to sort some stuff out here.

Firstly, "indigenous' culture is a misnomer variously applied to native populations, conquering populations who successfully either wiped out or assimilated their conquests, cultures who re-wrote their own histories that way etc..
Second, Specific, circumscribed examples does not shift te fact that almost all cultures, including indigenous cultures, have been hierarchy based and men, with the monopoly on force, tend to be at the top. It is well known that indigenous cultures across time and space were mostly patriarchal. By some estimates 70-80% vs something like 10% for just matrilineal - which does not mean matriarchal so the ratio is probably more like 12:1. It is pretty clear from the research that there are no Matriarchies the way we think of them today, in the record.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228014570_Egalitarianism_Among_Hunters_and_Gatherers
Hopefully you have access. There's a couple of related papers listed which are also interesting in this way.

that our role is to let the women lead — Questioner

hahahahaha. Oh yep. No. Your role is to let men lead.

See how utterly stupid this type of ignorant thinking is?

Here's the truth about the Apache nation - — Questioner

No, that is a random blog that makes you feel as if you have support for your position. I note that your response to Ecurb fully explaining why you're wrong is to suggest that somehow the fact that there are still problems in modern times, that somehow has any relevance whatsoever to the accuracy of your claim. Let's go through some aspects of live for Apache women:

https://www.desertusa.com/desert-people/apache-women.html?utm_

"The Apache girl’s puberty ceremony signaled, not only the end of her childhood, but her availability for marriage. "A full oval face is liked and medium height, not too tall," according to an Opler informant. "We like small hands and feet, but not too thin. A plump, full body is best. Legs should be in proportion to the rest of the body and not too thin. Mouth and ears should be in proportion to the rest of the face, not big.""

"After her puberty ceremony, the young Apache woman, valued more for her economic and practical worth than for her beauty, often faced a marriage negotiated by her family, many times without her agreement, sometimes without even her knowledge. Mindful that the man would join the young woman’s family – an arrangement called "matrilocal" by anthropologists – her parents drafted a marriage based, not on romantic love, but on material need. They sought out a proven and, frequently, older man, preferably one with tribal respect, wealth and connections, who would underwrite the future of the young woman, contribute horses to her father, marshal arms for the family’s protection, and contribute game to the family larder."

Sounds pretty familiar. IN fact, we got rid of these practices in the West close to 100 years ago (yes, I'm playing fast and loose. The point is we don't do this). Further, these cultures were note delicate "ancient wisdom holders". They were brutal, warlike human beings like us:

"Sometime in the second half of the 19th century, a Mescalero Apache woman called Gouyen, or Wise Woman, tracked down a Comanche chief who had murdered and scalped her husband.... She lured the chief, staggeringly drunk, into the night. She pounced on him like a mountain lion, ripping out his throat with her teeth. She then stabbed him and scalped him with his own knife. She stole his headband, breechclout and moccasins....Gouyen, said her chief, "is a brave and good woman. She has done a braver thing than has any man among the Mescaleros. She has killed the Comanche chief; and she has brought his weapons and garments to her people. She has ridden his mount. Let her always be honored by my people."


There are some cultures that still treat women this way, and worse. Do you know which they are? Africa, South Asia, Melanesia and Latin America. They have a profound and inarguable monopoly on killing women because they are suspected of have too much power. They are, by-and-large, communities not-too-far-removed from their indigenous cultures.

Its a dangerous, pernicious myth that "indigenous' cultures, as badly defined as that is, were somehow immune the slings and arrows of human nature. They, it seems, were far more resolute in their love of blood and violence, in many, many cases. They certainly, without a doubt, did not treat women on the whole better than modern, Western society. Pretty much none except a handful of South-Eastern tribes and the Cathars. Even those are nuanced.

It would help if you could restrict a conversation about real-world issues, to real-world premises and supports. If that's not the point, all good. But you seem to want to do philosophy.

I thought the selling point of IR is that it can explain error in perception where DR cannot. — Ludwig V

What? Maybe someone else is positing that. I think its patently clear that there is no way to assess error beyond error as a mathematical/statistical exercise or a purely practical one (trial and error, i guess) no matter which theory you prefer. The DRist, I think, wants to say that a mediated perception is direct enough to capture error. I just disagree.

Well, we need to assess whether given indirect perceptions are veridical by some means that is independent of them. What do you suggest? — Ludwig V

No we dont Is my position. I don't see why. And given the above, I can't see why we would try (but that's baked into the disagreement, so just noting for completeness).

There's no better way of knowing what's going there. — Ludwig V

Exactly. So you're admitting you're seeing light which presents the sun as it was eight minutes ago. I shall leave this there and just see if it lands.

I don't think there's any reasonable ground for doubt — Ludwig V

Which is batshit insane on the facts, to my mind. Not concluding error might be reasonable, but denying any reason for doubt is just... good god. Not sure i'm cut out for such a wild claim. The following doesn't help, because its entirely recursive.

I would say most religious belief comes from intuition and awareness. The deepest form of belief comes from direct awareness of God - knowledge of God, not speculation. Read Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich etc. — EnPassant

Yes, intuition, but in this case coupled with obvious falsities. You cannot be directly aware of a God which does not exist, and therein lies the problem. If your suggestion were to be taken seriously, those who do not feel this impulse would be defective. And that wouldn't be a Great God, so a couple of problems there. I am well aware of what are called transcendent religious experiences. You can get these from taking LSD. They are not at all convincing to anyone but someone who already believes.

I think you maybe do not understand how much of what you're saying is unsupported speculation despite it perhaps being common. Its quite hard to respond to the second paragraph withou tjust wholesale saying "Well, that makes very little sense". So I'll just note my discomfort with responding that way to something so clearly genuine and important to you.

Not exactly that the rule is culturally located, but its expression seems culturally bound at least.
A good, solid Catholic queer, for instance, would want to be put through conversion therapy so as to avoid what they determine is the result of being gay: Hell. In Islam, its (this is definitely cartoonish, i'm just making a point) transition surgeries. In the liberal west, its to be left alone to live one's life.

I'll take my rent now.

Which is exactly, and you've not even begun to start thinking about addressing this what i said it was: You saying there are women who don't fit into your framework. You've decided you know better, and should reeducate those women, despite them saying (to these concepts, not you personally): No thank you. I will enact my choices, as is my right. Not only this, you do it with reference to illdefined concepts that you cannot even explain:

deny their inner knowing — Questioner

The responsible thing to do, one would think, is to acknowledge that you have it wrong in hte face of contrary information.

Women are not monolithic., they do not overall share your views and perhaps you're trying to enforce a view and set of beliefs about women. You have entirely ignored that I've presented views of real women on these subjects. That is problematic, regardless of who's bringing it to your attention - i'm sure you can see why???

I suggest it is likely this will go unaddressed, though. You started a thread and seem to only want people to agree with you. Can you explain? Is it just too uncomfortable to work through your positions?

The problem with this approach is that it relies on those elements being caught in the phrase. Any which are not, escape us. So it's either a Bibllcal heuristic, applying only to those apparently inarguable wrongs, or it's not particularly useful because too many differ on how they want to be treated.

It wasn't new and I gave you two, thought-out, direct substantive replies largely populated by ideas gleaned from, and checked over by women.

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you? — Questioner

You did exactly this dismissiveness, though, in light of new perspectives from women. I am having a hard time understanding how this isn't just intense projection.

I understand what you mean.

1 - yep, I agree there
2 - I don't think that's accurate. They offer descriptions. and based on the 1 and 2
3 - we think we might have a grasp on this in a way that avoids certainty often gleaned from 2, which is betrayed by 1.

But as noted earlier, using a public system of checks and balances we can get on with it. And science to me, appears to be the art of getting this done - and likely explains why its so successful: You could think whatever you want, in terms of 3, and 2 would roughly speaking remain the same. Its helpful. But not something we could, on metaphysical levels, call veridical, I don't think (because 1). Maybe i'm just easier with discomfort.. indeed...

You don't have confidence that you can tell what's true and real? — frank

Not really. I tend not to think about it. But I also have ways of using those words that don't result in madness when I do fall into that. But admittedly, maybe once of twice I year I have a really tense hour or two.

I think you may have a very hard time learning things.

Starting with that confidence — frank

Wait, what?

Both sides of this argument start with irrational confidence in our ability to discern what is true and real. Neither side proposes to build a bridge to that confidence. — frank

So yeah, rejecting that because its absurd (in the technical sense).

we observe by way of anatomy and physiology that perception of the world appears to be constructed by the brain out of discreet electrical impulses. As you note, this is not a metaphysical argument, it's a scientific fact. — frank

Which is why IR is so attractive to those not bent to fall away into impractical discussion of how things feel.

Ye Jo Halka Halka Saroor Hai - Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan
Ei Raat Tomar Amar - Hemant Kumar (i think. Playback singer so might be wrong).

That is to say, none of this discussion is responsive to the metaphysical question of what the fundamental constitution of reality is. As in, what is the apple in the noumena? — Hanover

Because it doesn't need or want to. However, the DRist must have a way to do this. IRists reject it. The noumena is as it is - not as we see it. And that is not because they don't match. It's because they are fundamentally different things. We just have words for one and not the others.

All I see are IR descriptions being given as DR descriptions. That's why I started just replying to discreet issues. I can't make heads or tails of saying what Banno does and then saying "Direct". Baffling. I hope that's where it ends, personally.

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you? — Questioner

This is... quite telling. You do not want to engage with the communities you're disparaging, and yet you want to attack (that's what this is) someone suggesting you do this. That is extremely odd. If it were reasonable to approach a community from only the perspective of it's critics, we'd have wiped each other out millennia ago. If you disagree with the actual thing gave as critique, I would like you to let me know that, so we could discuss, instead a sexist ad hominem. Funnily, I am relaying female perspectives to you in the main. Funny... wrong females I guess.

I believe the vast majority of women have the same instincts as me. — Questioner

Well there's a mistake. They don't. Obviously.

for example needing the acceptance of a domineering man, or a domineering group - and in acquiescence, they obey. — Questioner

This is why. You are putting words and thoughts into other women's heads. They don't like it (as they tell me directly). You do not seem open to this. My wife predictably laughed at these initial suggestions - which itself suggests they are wrong, even if you think my wife is an asshole.

You're twisting things. And showing that you do not understand where I am coming from. — Questioner

Not at all. This is a response to exactly how you come across. That is not on me. I actually checked all of this with my wife before responding (although, not further responses save one aspect noted below). You may not like how I am responding, but to suggest i "just don't get it" is a cop out and one that is obviously not apt here. We're discussing competing views, not verifiable facts.

there should not be one who dominates, and one who submits. Submission requires a surrender of a part of you. — Questioner

Is this normative, or just saying this shouldn't be a requirement? I agree with that. But this is exactly what plenty of people naturally, and intellectually desire. I don't think you're coming in good faith to suggest that's never the case (which this sounds like and so is what I'm responding to). My wife has had, over years, to nudge, convince and comfort me becoming more dominant in service of her preferences. Not mine.

Any woman who has no connection to the knowing of her soul would be a sad, sad creature. — Questioner

This is darn judgmental and indicative of a certain flavour of disdain for women who do not believe what you believe. They are not "sad, sad creatures". This is an ironically misogynistic thing to say. I acknowledge, wholehearted, the benefits of a spiritual dimension - but the kind of amorphous, ill-defined attempts at creating a poetic story about motherhood or the "woman's soul"(not your words) (I mean, are you suggesting something real there? It's hard to tell. If you're not this seems to be a bit of a lark) simply distract from practical matters in most cases.

But I also acknowledging that lacking it is simply rejecting one possible poetic route to self-actualization. Plenty of women get that through sexual submission or powerlifting, painting, flower crowns, raising dogs, making whiskey, being aestheticians or sculpting wood or anything at all (albeit, there are tendencies) - if all you mean to say is that all of these things put one in touch with their "soul" then that is trivial and not saying anything about mothers or women but I fully, entirely agree.

I have to say, I ran part of this by my wife and we both find "connection to the knowing of her soul" to be the type of woo-woo stuff that convinces people to buy Goop products. Which is to say not really saying anything. Although, as a little gem of agreement, I've had exactly that thought on Acid.

You totally don't get it. — Questioner

Or, you don't. Your very first reply was to attempt, via sexism, to disparage and perhaps invalidate my response. Tsk tsk. It could simply be that you don't have a great idea going on, right? I mean, I could not get it. Sure. But there's a distance between how you're approaching this (rhetoric) and how I'm approaching it (practicality). I simply responded to your OP.

Given that the vast, vast majority of our interactions have been you putting forward fictions for serious discussion (this isn't a challenge in and of itself - i've really enjoyed it in plenty of places) and fail to recognize where the delineation lies, it is not too surprising you get not much response to these threads. There is so much more to these discussions than the, apparent, ideological commitments you open these discussions with. It's usually not fun to pick up on such a strong, even if admirable, ideological bent and still go ahead and give opinions. They tend to be taken badly, as here.

"White liberal women are a cancer on the nation.” - right-wing comedian Vincent Oshana wrote on X. — Questioner

Yeah, I know hte trends although I'm not on X. That is par for the course, and in no-way partisan.

Seen things progressive women say about the "Tradwife"?? Usually, i'd give you an example. You could Google it. What I suggest you do first is look at a description of what Tradwives themselves adopt. Then look at the slew of disgustingly incorrect "expose" type pieces - usually blogger opinions pieces - that somehow go from "I like to make bread, blow my husband and take care of the kids" to "We're going to lead a fascist revolution and destroy black people".

Horrifically bad thinking on all sides.