Ubuntu (the philosophy, not the OS)

[Galaxy Gazer]

That is completely anti-Ubuntu.
"It started by abstracting the female from her social roots which feminists construe as a form of bondage." Do you agree that this is how it went?
'women started using the prefix "Ms." because a relationship status should not define a woman any more than it defines a man.' It was more than just the title, her entire name was defined by her relationship to a man, for example, "Mrs. Darren Stevens." This was more than just a social custom denoting marriage, it also indicated that she was a virtuous woman according to the moral terms of her culture which is deemed by feminists to be male-dominated and unequal.

But as you've observed, social customs (or "archetypes") applied to both sexes:
"Why do women have to be social and family-oriented? Why do men have to be career-focused and good leaders?" So there actually was equality because each gender had social roles placed on them, it's just that the roles were different. To say that women should be equal to men simply means, as I've observed, that women should be social, family-oriented, career-focused, and good leaders. The modern female needs to be a little bit of everything, both male and female. This is the result of your feminist push for gender equality. Instead of giving women freedom of choice, feminism has placed more burdens on women.

Burdens? No. More like responsibility. I mean, men have always had to balance full-time careers with family. Why shouldn't the same be expected of us?

Honestly, I'm not entirely convinced that you don't just have a personal preference for more traditional women.

 

[Yuurei]

Sounds great- if you're man. I enjoy being able to express myself through style and no, my marital status is not anyone's business. Too bad.

It kind of is evidence in itself that feminism is still necessary " This belief system is great! But women have o give up their rights and if they don't like that then they just aren't team players. Selfish bitches."

 

[Mal12345]

Oppression is anti-Ubuntu.
I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing - The Verge

- - - Updated - - -

Burdens? No. More like responsibility. I mean, men have always had to balance full-time careers with family. Why shouldn't the same be expected of us?

Honestly, I'm not entirely convinced that you don't just have a personal preference for more traditional women.

My argument stands without the inclusion of personal bias.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

That is completely anti-Ubuntu.
"It started by abstracting the female from her social roots which feminists construe as a form of bondage." Do you agree that this is how it went?
'women started using the prefix "Ms." because a relationship status should not define a woman any more than it defines a man.' It was more than just the title, her entire name was defined by her relationship to a man, for example, "Mrs. Darren Stevens." This was more than just a social custom denoting marriage, it also indicated that she was a virtuous woman according to the moral terms of her culture which is deemed by feminists to be male-dominated and unequal.

But as you've observed, social customs (or "archetypes") applied to both sexes:
"Why do women have to be social and family-oriented? Why do men have to be career-focused and good leaders?" So there actually was equality because each gender had social roles placed on them, it's just that the roles were different. To say that women should be equal to men simply means, as I've observed, that women should be social, family-oriented, career-focused, and good leaders. The modern female needs to be a little bit of everything, both male and female. This is the result of your feminist push for gender equality. Instead of giving women freedom of choice, feminism has placed more burdens on women.

No. It hasn't. It has provided options of roles rather than just one. Women who want to take the role that implies the role of a "natural" woman, according to you, well, that role is still available to anyone who desires it and many do.

Women have a right to speak for themselves and have done so with varying results because women aren't some phalanx hive mind. Some want tradition, some don't.

What do you mean "It" started? This feminism appeared out of the Big Bang? Women grabbed it out of the air and implanted it in their brains? Or did some women actually think, all by themselves! that they wanted more options and rights?

Nevermind that.

By your Ubutu, the responsibility of feminism can be laid at the feet of men. Since they are the supposed protectors of women? Enough have failed and so Ubutu is flawed because humans are flawed.

 

[Mal12345]

No. It hasn't. It has provided options of roles rather than just one. Women who want to take the role that implies the role of a "natural" woman, according to you, well, that role is still available to anyone who desires it and many do.

Women have a right to speak for themselves and have done so with varying results because women aren't some phalanx hive mind. Some want tradition, some don't.

What do you mean "It" started? This feminism appeared out of the Big Bang? Women grabbed it out of the air and implanted it in their brains? Or did some women actually think, all by themselves! that they wanted more options and rights?

Nevermind that.

By your Ubutu, the responsibility of feminism can be laid at the feet of men. Since they are the supposed protectors of women? Enough have failed and so Ubutu is flawed because humans are flawed.

You're oppressing me.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

You're oppressing me.

You spelled impressing wrong.

 

[Empyrean]

Rather than being a nihilist, I am a believer. I believe we are meaning creating animals, and that without meaning we sicken and die.

And I believe some meanings are life enhancing and some life diminishing.

And I believe we perceive by making distinctions, and the more distinctions, the more we see, and the less distinctions, the less we see.

And I know English contains more words than any other language, so has more permutations and combinations than any other language. So English contains more distinctions than any other language, so we see more.

See.

I like this. But at a certain point, we must move beyond the dyad of distinction vs. non-distinction. This is the move towards Emptiness, towards the Wittgenstein and Daoistic silence, and towards Buddha Nature.

As for Ubuntu, it sounds very interesting. However, Mal12345 sounds confused.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

Oppression is anti-Ubuntu.
I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing - The Verge

- - - Updated - - -



My argument stands without the inclusion of personal bias.

Your "argument" basically equates to, "women should accept their place in society, and the ones who don't are selfish and materialistic."

 

[Coriolis]

It's actually one of the main reasons I'm so into typology. According to the Myers-Briggs theory, there are 16 generalized types of people, regardless of gender. There are female INTJs and male ESFJs. It's not fair that some people should have to suppress their natural qualities and strengths because they're not consistent with gender roles.

Exactly. It is this reality that gives the lie to traditional gender expectations.

That is completely anti-Ubuntu.
"It started by abstracting the female from her social roots which feminists construe as a form of bondage." Do you agree that this is how it went?
'women started using the prefix "Ms." because a relationship status should not define a woman any more than it defines a man.' It was more than just the title, her entire name was defined by her relationship to a man, for example, "Mrs. Darren Stevens." This was more than just a social custom denoting marriage, it also indicated that she was a virtuous woman according to the moral terms of her culture which is deemed by feminists to be male-dominated and unequal.

But as you've observed, social customs (or "archetypes") applied to both sexes:
"Why do women have to be social and family-oriented? Why do men have to be career-focused and good leaders?" So there actually was equality because each gender had social roles placed on them, it's just that the roles were different. To say that women should be equal to men simply means, as I've observed, that women should be social, family-oriented, career-focused, and good leaders. The modern female needs to be a little bit of everything, both male and female. This is the result of your feminist push for gender equality. Instead of giving women freedom of choice, feminism has placed more burdens on women.

Why would it not be important to be able to identify whether a man was married or not? And yes, not only a woman's name but her whole existence was defined by her relationship to a man. In fact, until close to the 20th century, the very being or legal existence of women was considered suspended during marriage, subsumed into that of their husbands. This is why women were not allowed to own property, and were often not held responsible for committing crimes. This is similar to how children are often treated, or slaves. Might as well justify black slavery as a state of racial equality because each race has special roles placed on them, the roles were just different. See how that works?

Modern females - and modern males - do need to be a little bit of everything. That all adds up to a responsible, functioning adult. Men who can't handle household, family, and social responsibilities are just as limited and imbalanced as women who aren't allowed to take on anything else. Obviously no one will spend equal time or gain equal skill at everything. We aren't all jacks (or jills) of all trades, and suggesting that feminism or other manifestations of gender equity require that is a strawman. What we focus on, though, should be dictated by our actual abilities, interests, and personal circumstances, not which set of genitalia or chromosomes we have.

 

[Yuurei]

Your "argument" basically equates to, "women should accept their place in society, and the ones who don't are selfish and materialistic."

Which is exactly the point of my earlier post.

TBH so many ideologies/religions/societies just expect women to take one for every other team that by this point we're just like " Yeah, we know the drill. Can we at least expect a "Thank You" this time?Of course...uh huh dinner at six."

 

[Mole]

I like this. But at a certain point, we must move beyond the dyad of distinction vs. non-distinction. This is the move towards Emptiness, towards the Wittgenstein and Daoistic silence, and towards Buddha Nature.

Sure, but as we perceive by making distinctions, when we move towards Emptiness, towards the Wittgenstein and Daoistic silence, and towards Buddha nature, we lose the ability to perceive.

So the price of Emptiness is perception.

And unfortunately the sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

 

[Empyrean]

Sure, but as we perceive by making distinctions, when we move towards Emptiness, towards the Wittgenstein and Daoistic silence, and towards Buddha nature, we lose the ability to perceive.

So the price of Emptiness is perception.

And unfortunately the sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

Your thinking appears to be deficient in a certain respect (but, perhaps not; perhaps my perception is deficient).

Those who have grasped Buddha Nature (although 'grasped' is a terrible term of choice, perhaps 'synthesized with' or 'returned to' is better) -- myself not included -- are like the Thousand-Armed Kannon, the Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva.

The mind is without thought, but not thoughtless.

And the perceptual ability of the mind, the extent to which it is cognizant of, all the objects of perception (if we want to define perception as having objects; we can go the other route and say there are no objects in perception as well, but that takes the content of the following logical consequent to a different area) are simply 'there' to be grasped.

By not placing the mind in a particular arm, Avalokiteśvara is able to utilize any of them. You can extend this analogy to that of a human being with two simple arms. By not placing your mind in any particular one, you are free to use them both. However, the example is more of an extreme case with our Thousand-Armed Bodhisattva.

I hope this advances your thinking.

However, upon reflection, I think I understand the point you are making.

You are saying that perception ceases as we move towards Emptiness. I think it's not that perception ceases, but judgements. I don't think this is a problem for Buddhists, as they'll concede that we live in a conventional world, in conventional reality. Judgements are part of that conventionality, as is general perception.

Really, though, I think true Enlightenment is perhaps not so dissimilar in nature to a sort of Parmenidean collapse into absolute unity. And, at this level, perhaps even perception ceases. I dislike the word 'cease,' however... ah, and it's beautiful right now because I, we, etc., are approaching the limits of language.

So, here is my hand.

 

[Mal12345]

Your thinking appears to be deficient in a certain respect.

Those who have grasped Buddha Nature (although 'grasped' is a terrible term of choice, perhaps 'synthesized with' or 'returned to' is better) -- myself not included -- are like the Thousand-Armed Kannon, the Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva.

The mind is without thought, but not thoughtless.

And the perceptual ability of the mind, the extent to which it is cognizant of, all the objects of perception (if we want to define perception as having objects; we can go the other route and say there are no objects in perception as well, but that takes the content of the following logical consequent to a different area) are simply 'there' to be grasped.

By not placing the mind in a particular arm, Avalokiteśvara is able to utilize any of them. You can extend this analogy to that of a human being with two simple arms. By not placing your mind in any particular one, you are free to use them both. However, the example is more of an extreme case with our Thousand-Armed Bodhisattva.

I hope this advances your thinking.

However, upon reflection, I think I understand the point you are making.

You are saying that perception ceases as we move towards Emptiness. I think it's not that perception ceases, but judgements. I don't think this is a problem for Buddhists, as they'll concede that we live in a conventional world, in conventional reality. Judgements are part of that conventionality, as is general perception.

Really, though, I think true Enlightenment is perhaps not so dissimilar in nature to a sort of Parmenidean collapse into absolute unity. And, at this level, perhaps even perception ceases. I dislike the word 'cease,' however... ah, and it's beautiful right now because I, we, etc., are approaching the limits of language.

So, here is my hand.

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] was referring to his own psychology, not to Buddhist ideas in general.

 

[Empyrean]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] was referring to his own psychology, not to Buddhist ideas in general.

I know.

I was only clarifying to advance our respective understanding of things.