# Thread: Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

1. Originally Posted by greenfairy
I like sushi. This is true. And it is subjective. And this truth is very meaningful to me.
Except that it is not subjective. You do objectively enjoy sushi. It would be subjective and untrue if you said that "Sushi is the best tasting food"

2. Originally Posted by Pseudo
Correct! I should have said " In my experience generalizations tend to result in bad things". A modification in language that makes a formerly unprovable statement a more accurate description of my thought and lack of definitive knowledge. More nuanced, more true.
Yeah. Problem is we don't know what's true until we verify it. Thus arises a conundrum: how do you know when you've verified it?

Just look at what happened with physics which is relatively easy to verify. We went from the luminiferous aether to Newtonian mechanics to Einstein to finding the Higgs Boson and we still aren't entirely sure about very much. They built the LHC and found something and they weren't even sure if that something was the thing or not.

3. Originally Posted by MacGuffin
I don't speak NF.

"Non" means "not". Non-rational means not rational. Not rational is irrational.

You can't re-define things because they don't agree with with your irrational values.
No, what I'm saying is that contradiction implies existing on the same continuum, or in the same dimension. Non-application means it neither is consistent nor inconsistent, because it is on a different continuum/ in a different dimension. Is this NT speak?

Let's get more T. We could say that P and ~P are a contradiction, which is a logical inconsistency. P and an orange is not a logical inconsistency because one is a logical component and one is not. Oranges do not exist on a logical continuum.

Or, two points on a line are opposite to each other, which could be seen as a contradiction. A point on a line parallel to it is not in opposition to either, because the lines do not intersect. Or a point in another quadrant of the graph is not in opposition because it does not touch the line.

By the same line of thinking rationality and non-rationality (or whatever you want to call spirituality and such) are non contradictory. Rationality and spirituality do not apply to each other.

4. Originally Posted by sprinkles
Yeah. Problem is we don't know what's true until we verify it. Thus arises a conundrum: how do you know when you've verified it?

Just look at what happened with physics which is relatively easy to verify. We went from the luminiferous aether to Newtonian mechanics to Einstein to finding the Higgs Boson and we still aren't entirely sure about very much. They built the LHC and found something and they weren't even sure if that something was the thing or not.
You don't know but it doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. If something exist in reality it is theoretically knowable. Is there a God? I cannot definitively affirm or deny that, however the fact remains that there either is or is not a God.

The examples you presented illustrate the search for truth, which would not continue if people had just settled for a generalization of what was going on. Physicists do not know for certain how the universe works however we can assume that it does work is some way. Whether that is congruent with our current understanding or not. Whether it's laws are fixed or shifting. There is a Truth about it.

5. Originally Posted by Pseudo
Except that it is not subjective. You do objectively enjoy sushi. It would be subjective and untrue if you said that "Sushi is the best tasting food"
I don't know about that. Can you prove I actually do enjoy sushi and I'm not just making it up or imagining it?

6. Originally Posted by Pseudo
You don't know but it doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. If something exist in reality it is theoretically knowable. Is there a God? I cannot definitively affirm or deny that, however the fact remains that there either is or is not a God.

The examples you presented illustrate the search for truth, which would not continue if people had just settled for a generalization of what was going on.
Right, and if we are to have a discussion we must suspend this process intermittently and say 'this is the state of things as far as I can tell at this moment.'

Otherwise we may as well not even speak. People want to talk about things that are senseless? I think having to caveat everything with "I don't actually know, but" makes pretty much everything useless. And if we want to get super technical, then the pedants in this thread are probably being more feelery about this stuff than the alleged feelers are.

7. Originally Posted by greenfairy
I don't know about that. Can you prove I actually do enjoy sushi and I'm not just making it up or imagining it?
lol. You're incorrigible.

Back to OP:

Originally Posted by greenfairy
Thoughts?

I think this is lovely.

It could be said that things of this nature have a bit of a heterosexual bias, but it could just as easily be platonic; and man or woman could be whichever of the feminine or masculine polarities you identify with (doesn't have to be biological).
I've seen similar things before.

Aside from the fact that it might reflect something specific in terms of gender breakdown within Cherokee culture (so it might not be as applicable in other cultures), it just seems to focus on general differences where men in the culture focus on tasks in the world whereas women are viewed as more easily building community and being in touch with their souls (kind of the Yin/Yang thing), and thus each of them uses their particular focus and abilities in a way that is beneficial to the other and/or invites the other into their particular area of strength.

Of course, you're going to get into all these arguments of "Do souls even exist?" and "what is source?" and "Why do women need protecting?" and "Gee, isn't this shallow / Aren't there greater things to aspire to than this?" and "Are these gender categories and roles even relevant and accurate?" And so on. This forum in particular will be a tough sell on these things, as gender assumptions / categories are challenged here by many.

But that is how I interpreted the quote.

8. Originally Posted by Pseudo
I don't disagree that their are physical differences but I do question the extent to which they shape our personalities. Most for the reasons I stated previously that women all don't function in the same way. You could have two women which have very dissimilar personalities and a man and a women with very similar personalities. For example of these three people who is the outlier: Sarah Palin, Glen beck, Andy Worhol.

I'm not denying that gender is a factor in shaping a person, I'm just denying that it is the most significant or lone factor.
True. I don't think it is the most significant factor either.

9. Originally Posted by Jennifer
Uhhh.... It's not subjective that you like sushi. It's objectively true that you like sushi. You can say, "I like sushi," as a fact.

However, your liking for sushi is subjective, as it is based on your preferences. Just because you like sushi does not mean that sushi is good to everyone. So you can not say, "Sushi is good [to everyone]" as an objective fact.
Right. And the only thing I am asserting as an objective fact is the concept of balance. Some of the philosophical things I said in my wall of text in post #30 I would also argue to be objective truth, but not many as it is relating to a subjective quotation.

10. Originally Posted by greenfairy
I don't know about that. Can you prove I actually do enjoy sushi and I'm not just making it up or imagining it?

You are completely misunderstanding the concept.

The point is that for something to be True it must be objective. If you are lying, the Truth remains objective regardless of whether of not I am aware of it. An illustration:

The Truth: you dislike sushi
Your statment " i love sushi"
my beilief " Greenfairy loves sushi"
The Truth remains: you dislike sushi.

As for imagining I fail to see how you could Imagine you like sushi, but the same idea as above applies. You either do or do not enjoy the taste of sushi. Whether you think that this is sushi :

or you have only imagined having eaten sushi, there is still an objective truth in regards to your bodies response to sushi.

What a long absurd post I've written. haha

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•