Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[Coriolis]

But why even bother with this? Isn't science enough with theoreticals and concrete realities? Also, is there really a dichotomy or just another construct?

Consider. Humankind are animals/mammals that by sheer accident and the drive for survival, have evolved into mammals that have a higher consciousness. Beyond that, the rest is construct where purpose is what each individual or community makes it. That's the substance of good/evil. It's a matter of abide or not by construct and if your choice is not to abide, there will be human inflicted consequences whether social shunning or punishment.

Existing past death? Who cares. Once we die, it's all moot.

The above to me is so freeing, rather than frightening. Free to be who we wish to be when we're willing to pay the price tag that freedom comes with, whether in labour or some other quantifiable or unquantifiable cost.

I bother because it has utility to me. Likewise, the dichotomy may be a construct, but is it a useful one. Many attributes can be viewed in opposing pairs: active/passive, strong/weak, external/internal, light/dark, giving/receiving, even the pairs in the type codes. These are ideals, or absolutes, and no one is entirely one or the other, but it helps in comparing and contrasting their effects on people and situations. Denying any fundamental sense of purpose or non-physical reality is as much a belief as embracing it. I prefer at least to entertain the concepts, as I find them useful and interesting.

actually yes.
but we'll proceed as if that makes sense.the concept you're trying to convey only makes use of the word "sex." gender can, and should be left out.
as romantic and utopian as that sounds, it's just not realistic.
there's a reason such a "bias" exists with such social and geographical breadth. i might not know precisely how those evolved ideals fell into place, but the evidence is clear: each sex has different built-in strengths. naturally, to varying degrees and with plenty of exception.

the best teams succeed when everyone performs their role to specification. we succeed as a species under the same conditions.
we fail when everyone trampling over one another trying to attain the same goal like two baseball players cracking their heads against the other's chasing the same fly-ball, under some misguided fear of bias.

i guess you're trying to fight for the underdog here. the proverb does doesn't give a lot of credit to a Joan or Arc or Shakespeare, right?
except that since we're all gifted with mainly the same talents, the most important of which being the ability to accomplish many things in a lifetime, we can see a woman-warrior who further nurtures her protective husband's already strong, poetic soul.

Actually, no. If you are going to put words into my mouth, then you don't need me to hold up the other end of this discussion, and I will leave you to your misconceptions about what I think. I mention sex and gender because I wish to include both distinctions. It is unfortunate that you find it unrealistic to view human beings first and foremost as individuals. The "varying degrees and plenty of exceptions" you note make it unrealistic to do anything else. The best teams succeed when everyone is able to do what they do best. Teams fail when they do not share a common goal. I am not speaking of underdogs here, but simply of people who do not fit neatly into the divisions you are promoting. Statistics may bear out that more women do/are A and more men do/are B, but individuals are not statistics, and everyone loses out when we assume each will display the "average" behavior for some category.

 

[greenfairy]

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.

I agree. Objective reality does exist. However, because we are beings limited by physical bodies and physical senses, and our individual experiences, none of us can completely comprehend objective truth in its entirety. It's like the blind mice trying to identify the elephant. We can constantly discover new pieces of objective reality, but since we are limited to a subjective existence we have to work within it to some extent. Sometimes it is beneficial to focus on utilitarianism in beliefs; if operating within a certain way of thinking produces preferable results and is reliable, it makes sense to use it.

 

[Pseudo]

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree (haha, a joke in light of this conversation). I think that it is good to qualify that we are not certain of things. Yes in casual conversation it might be overly complicated but I think in debate or any serious conversation it is important because, again, it is the truth. I think that if people were more open with the limitations of their knowledge we would actually be able to know more, rather than fighting over the differences between our accepted generalizations.

 

[greenfairy]

lol. You're incorrigible.

Back to OP:



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.

I pretty much interpreted it the same way. (In post #30.) Plus a lot of fluffy stuff. And yes I anticipated this reaction, just not quite as intellectually hostile as some people have made it.

 

[Pseudo]

I agree. Objective reality does exist. However, because we are beings limited by physical bodies and physical senses, and our individual experiences, none of us can completely comprehend objective truth in its entirety. It's like the blind mice trying to identify the elephant. We can constantly discover new pieces of objective reality, but since we are limited to a subjective existence we have to work within it to some extent. Sometimes it is beneficial to focus on utilitarianism in beliefs; if operating within a certain way of thinking produces preferable results and is reliable, it makes sense to use it.

I don't think our inability to grasp all of objective reality should be an excuse to fall back into subjective concepts when do know to be false. The concept of utilitarian beliefs strikes me as an oxymoron because I cannot believe something simply because it is useful. It makes sense to use it, but not to believe it if you have evidence to the contrary or it is logical inconsistent.

 

[greenfairy]

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

True. And amusing. I see what you guys are getting at with subjectivity. I'm only saying that subjective reality exists- maybe this is not the same as truth. Who can know?

(Ok, yes very NF sounding in this post haha. Or maybe Ni.)

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION]

Yeah and that's totally what didn't happen in this thread, unfortunately.

 

[Pseudo]

True. And amusing. I see what you guys are getting at with subjectivity. I'm only saying that subjective reality exists- maybe this is not the same as truth. Who can know?

(Ok, yes very NF sounding in this post haha. Or maybe Ni.)

hmmmm. I'm on board with the idea of subjective experience but not subjective truth

 

[Pseudo]

[MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION]

Yeah and that's totally what didn't happen in this thread, unfortunately.

Yeah But I think it's been really interesting. You were very reasonable to talk to. Some people can't help but turn a debate into an argument. But you were great to talk with.

 

[greenfairy]

I don't think our inability to grasp all of objective reality should be an excuse to fall back into subjective concepts when do know to be false. The concept of utilitarian beliefs strikes me as an oxymoron because I cannot believe something simply because it is useful. It makes sense to use it, but not to believe it if you have evidence to the contrary or it is logical inconsistent.

Interesting. I find it easy to believe all sorts of things at the same time, because they are different pieces of reality which may or may not exist on the same continuum. They all fit into my internal framework in one way or another, which depends to a great extent on vagueness and abstractions. I think in order to encompass objective reality in the mental framework of an individual, it has to be somewhat general to include all of the variation and exceptions to rules. You have to just operate on underlying principles. But going back to utilitarian beliefs- I guess they're not so much beliefs as reliable assumptions or experimentally supported hypotheses, as nothing can be known to be absolutely true. And sometimes symbolic modes of thinking, as is the case with mythology.

 

[greenfairy]

hmmmm. I'm on board with the idea of subjective experience but not subjective truth

Maybe so. Or it could just be semantic understandings of what truth means. Which is another thing people have many opinions about, and about which whole schools of philosophy are based.

I myself don't have an absolute definition.

 

[sprinkles]

Yeah But I think it's been really interesting. You were very reasonable to talk to. Some people can't help but turn a debate into an argument. But you were great to talk with.

I'll talk with anyone so long as they don't get all personal about it.

Also, for an aside, I'm reminded of the Monty Hall problem, where there's three doors and you have to choose one, and there's a goat behind two doors and a car behind the other. After having chosen a door, the host will open another door to reveal a goat, and ask if you want to change doors.

Probability dictates that you should ALWAYS change doors in this problem, because it doubles your chances of getting the car. Most people absolutely refuse to believe this because it goes against their intuition, but it is true and provable.

This works because 'Monty' knows what's behind the doors and always reveals one of the goats, so once a door is opened it actually becomes an entirely new problem. If you don't switch, you only keep your original 1/3 odds but if you do switch, you actually have 2/3 odds of getting the car instead of 1/3. It's mathematically true and proven but people will still refuse to believe it even when they are shown exactly why it does work.

 

[Pseudo]

Interesting. I find it easy to believe all sorts of things at the same time, because they are different pieces of reality which may or may not exist on the same continuum. They all fit into my internal framework in one way or another, which depends to a great extent on vagueness and abstractions. I think in order to encompass objective reality in the mental framework of an individual, it has to be somewhat general to include all of the variation and exceptions to rules. You have to just operate on underlying principles. But going back to utilitarian beliefs- I guess they're not so much beliefs as reliable assumptions or experimentally supported hypotheses, as nothing can be known to be absolutely true. And sometimes symbolic modes of thinking, as is the case with mythology.

I think there is a distinction between believing in multiple things and believing their is a complex truth. For example i cannot believe the statements "women love apples" and "women hate apples" to be true simultaneously. However I can believe that " Women have varying feelings about apples" which takes my experiences of various truths about individual women's' feelings towards apples into an overarching Truth about women and apples.

 

[greenfairy]

I don't think our inability to grasp all of objective reality should be an excuse to fall back into subjective concepts when do know to be false. The concept of utilitarian beliefs strikes me as an oxymoron because I cannot believe something simply because it is useful. It makes sense to use it, but not to believe it if you have evidence to the contrary or it is logical inconsistent.

Consider the idea that trees have spirits. Can we prove this? No. Can we prove it is not true? No. We would first have to define spirit, then find some way of reliably scientifically measuring it, then have unbiased research on the matter, and then have it published in an unbiased fashion. But I don't need this verification to have it as a utilitarian belief. It produces preferable results for me; so it is a symbolic way of thinking which may not be consistent with absolute objective truth, which I "believe" anyway. I don't assert it as an objective truth, because it is essentially unknowable. But I can operate under the reliable assumption. Maybe the underlying objective principle which is True is that trees and I are made of atoms and their electrons respond to my electrons with the help of protons and neutrons, and that by behaving in a way consistent with this "belief" my energy affects the trees' energy in a way which maximizes health and well being for all.

 

[greenfairy]

I think there is a distinction between believing in multiple things and believing their is a complex truth. For example i cannot believe the statements "women love apples" and "women hate apples" to be true simultaneously. However I can believe that " Women have varying feelings about apples" which takes my experiences of various truths about individual women's' feelings towards apples into an overarching Truth about women and apples.

Well, in logic the statement "women love apples" would be read as "some women love apples," and the statement "women hate apples" would be read as "some women hate apples." Hate being the opposite of love, you could say hate= not love, so this would translate as "some women love apples" and "some women do not love apples." These statements do not produce a contradiction. If you were to say all women love apples and all women hate apples, this would be read as "For every x that is a woman, it is the case that this x loves apples" combined with "For every x that is a woman it is the case that this x does not love apples." This would be a contradiction.

Just to nitpick, because I enjoy it.

 

[greenfairy]

Yeah But I think it's been really interesting. You were very reasonable to talk to. Some people can't help but turn a debate into an argument. But you were great to talk with.

 

[Mole]

Consider the idea that trees have spirits. Can we prove this? No. Can we prove it is not true? No.

A spirit is conscious. And we know a prefrontal cortex is necessary for consciousness. And we know a tree does not have a prefrontal cortex. So a tree is not conscious. So a tree doesn't have a spirit.

 

[Orangey]

Well, in logic the statement "women love apples" would be read as "some women love apples," and the statement "women hate apples" would be read as "some women hate apples." Hate being the opposite of love, you could say hate= not love, so this would translate as "some women love apples" and "some women do not love apples." These statements do not produce a contradiction. If you were to say all women love apples and all women hate apples, this would be read as "For every x that is a woman, it is the case that this x loves apples" combined with "For every x that is a woman it is the case that this x does not love apples." This would be a contradiction.

Just to nitpick, because I enjoy it.

What? Why would "women love apples" be automatically translated to "some women love apples?" The sentence "women love apples" would be translated as "for every x, if x is a woman then x loves apples."

 

[greenfairy]

A spirit is conscious. And we know a prefrontal cortex is necessary for consciousness. And we know a tree does not have a prefrontal cortex. So a tree is not conscious. So a tree doesn't have a spirit.

Do we know this? How do you define consciousness? Most people's definitions will be a little bit different.

 

[greenfairy]

What? Why would "women love apples" be automatically translated to "some women love apples?" It implies a universal quantifier, so I don't know why you'd translate it as you did.

It might imply a universal quantifier, but you can't assume one if it's not there. Context clues require interpretation. That's what it says in my textbook anyway. All we can be truly sure about is that "women love apples" means that at least one woman loves apples.