The Mona Lisa Curse

[Josquin des Prez]

It would depend if we took a Platonic or Aristotelian approach, now, wouldn't it?

I think Plato was greater then Aristotle, so...

I'm just a bit surprised to find out the Mother Theresa, by your analysis, was "ruthlessly materialistic", since "females always appeared" that way.

Her concern for feeding and nurturing the poor is pretty much a materialistic concept, materialism in this sense being taken from its literal meaning. To use symbolic analogies, masculinity represents the divine in man, where woman is the earth. The first inhabits a world of ethereal concepts. She nurtures and supplies nourishment. In most conjugal relationships, the woman is primarily concerned with the necessities of life, while the man is usually an unwilling participant. While he wastes his time discussing high minded ideals on internet forums, the wife nags at him for not filing their tax report, or for not picking up the trash. 

To some degree, this makes sense in a Jungian sense, but according to Jung, the artist drew strength from the anima or animus (representation of the other gender) from within their own unconsciousness- it was the existence of both identities within a single person that provided the creative spark .  Your interpretation of a "single entity" with two physical entities doesn't match what Jung was going after.   

Because the concept of masculinity and femininity are nothing more then abstractions. Both entities can exist within a single individual in fixed proportions. If you had read Weininger, like i told you to, you would know this already.

Irony Alert!  Liberals aren't the only ones who use a priori reasoning.  Check out this example:

I arrived at my conclusions by using ontological means, i never established anything a priori.   

[(poco) Sforzando]

What you are describing is rhetoric. By argument i [sic] obviously meant an exchange aimed at discovering the nature of a particular object or concept, which by its very definition can neither be ethical nor emotional. By your argument, the dialogues of Socrates were an attempt by the philosopher to persuade the reader rather then discover the truth behind certain ideas. That wouldn't reflect well on Socrates, now would it?

Why not? Socrates (as depicted by Plato) is a consummate performer, who attempts all the time to persuade the reader and entertain. That's why he writes dialogues with characters and not just philosophical tracts. And if you don't see that, I suggest a reading of the Allegory of the Cave, or the whole of the Symposium, the most entertaining dinner party in Classical literature (Petronius perhaps excepted), and a well-known source of the notion that man and woman "are two halves of a single entity."

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't know what JdP thinks on this, but I for one certainly see no argument here, just a blatant piece of demagoguery. 

Remember it is only the final paragraph of a lengthy address - the emotional peroration, not the whole.

[Bulldog]

I think Plato was greater then Aristotle, so...

Her concern for feeding and nurturing the poor is pretty much a materialistic concept, materialism in this sense being taken from its literal meaning. To use symbolic analogies, masculinity represents the divine in man, where woman is the earth. The first inhabits a world of ethereal concepts. She nurtures and supplies nourishment. In most conjugal relationships, the woman is primarily concerned with the necessities of life, while the man is usually an unwilling participant. While he wastes his time discussing high minded ideals on internet forums, the wife nags at him for not filing their tax report, or for not picking up the trash. 

Do yourself a favor - stop wasting your time.

[jowcol]

In most conjugal relationships, the woman is primarily concerned with the necessities of life, while the man is usually an unwilling participant.

You owe me a new keyboard. I was drinking coffee when I read that gem, and wasn't ready for something that funny.  I take it that, among the great monuments to Civilization, you've never seen "Porky's" .  There were a lot of male participants eager and willing for conjugal relations in that one.   But maybe reading this thread would dulll their ardor.

While he wastes his time discussing high minded ideals on internet forums, the wife nags at him for not filing their tax report, or for not picking up the trash. 

High minded ideals?  Where?

Because the concept of masculinity and femininity are nothing more then abstractions. Both entities can exist within a single individual in fixed proportions.

They may be abstractions on one level, but, as in a classic zen story, if somebody hits you in the head with a stick, even though it may be an abstraction, it still hurts.

If you had read Weininger, like i told you to, you would know this already.

My bad. I don't recall you telling me to do anything. But  You know I'd do  anything someone on the internet would tell me to do.  On another forum, I've got an excellent opportunity to invest in waterfront property!   

As far as the above point,   Taoism had addressed this many centuries before (concepts of Yin and Yang making an integrated whole) , and the topic is pretty common with many dualistic faiths.  So I'm not sure if it was an earthshaking discovery.

[Novi]

Her concern for feeding and nurturing the poor is pretty much a materialistic concept, materialism in this sense being taken from its literal meaning. To use symbolic analogies, masculinity represents the divine in man, where woman is the earth. The first inhabits a world of ethereal concepts. She nurtures and supplies nourishment. In most conjugal relationships, the woman is primarily concerned with the necessities of life, while the man is usually an unwilling participant. While he wastes his time discussing high minded ideals on internet forums, the wife nags at him for not filing their tax report, or for not picking up the trash. 

High minded ideals?  Where?

In the 'What are you eating' thread.

[(poco) Sforzando]

In the 'What are you eating' thread.

This is more like the "What are you smoking?" thread.

[Josquin des Prez]

You owe me a new keyboard. I was drinking coffee when I read that gem, and wasn't ready for something that funny.  I take it that, among the great monuments to Civilization, you've never seen "Porky's" .  There were a lot of male participants eager and willing for conjugal relations in that one.   But maybe reading this thread would dulll their ardor.

Perhaps i wasn't clear enough. I was talking about the most mundane aspects of a marriage, which to a woman constitute her entire existence, whereas to a man its nothing more then pointless drudgery. Put it this way. Women have their feet set squarely on the ground. Men tend to gaze at clouds when she isn't looking.

High minded ideals?  Where?

Every single board i've ever visited, be it classical, jazz, literature, science, or video gaming are frequented almost exclusively by men, with a few scattered exceptions here and there. Men like to lose themselves into a world of conceptual ideas. Women, not so much. It was Schopenhaur who said that men have a greater understanding of history and can project far into the future, while women tend to see the present more clearly. The latter quality is particularly useful when the world revolves around mundane concerns.

They may be abstractions on one level, but, as in a classic zen story, if somebody hits you in the head with a stick, even though it may be an abstraction, it still hurts.

I have no idea what you are talking about. When arguing over the nature of a particular subject, for the most part, we tend to deal with abstractions. Thus, everything i said regarding masculinity and femininity was referring to purely abstract conceptions. As Weininger indicated, no woman is entirely feminine while no men is entirely masculine, all thought most women are most certainly feminine, and vice versa. Thus, when i say that femininity is characterized by certain particular traits, it does not automatically mean this applies to all women. 

My bad. I don't recall you telling me to do anything. But  You know I'd do  anything someone on the internet would tell me to do.  On another forum, I've got an excellent opportunity to invest in waterfront property!

I mentioned Weininger many times. Here, i'll make it easy for you:

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/
   

As far as the above point,   Taoism had addressed this many centuries before (concepts of Yin and Yang making an integrated whole) , and the topic is pretty common with many dualistic faiths.  So I'm not sure if it was an earthshaking discovery.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Weininger suggested that the classification of gender based solely on genitalia is an approximate measure. That we all have something of either sex from a deeper biological point of view. Essentially, none of us is 100% male or 100% female, and human variety relies entire on the proportion of feminine or masculine biological make up we carry within ourselves. The implications are enormous. It would explain many facets of human behavior, including homosexuality, or feminine achievement in fields generally dominated by men.

[Florestan]

Remember it is only the final paragraph of a lengthy address - the emotional peroration, not the whole.

I'm well aware of that and that's actually my point: taken out of the whole context it does sound like demagoguery.

[jowcol]

Perhaps i wasn't clear enough. I was talking about the most mundane aspects of a marriage, which to a woman constitute her entire existence, whereas to a man its nothing more then pointless drudgery. Put it this way. Women have their feet set squarely on the ground. Men tend to gaze at clouds when she isn't looking.

And this naturally applies to the whole human race?  There are a few billion that may not have been blessed with your guidance.

Every single board i've ever visited, be it classical, jazz, literature, science, or video gaming are frequented almost exclusively by men, with a few scattered exceptions here and there. Men like to lose themselves into a world of conceptual ideas. Women, not so much. It was Schopenhaur who said that men have a greater understanding of history and can project far into the future, while women tend to see the present more clearly. The latter quality is particularly useful when the world revolves around mundane concerns.

Interesting that your characterization of men seems to go to a relative handful of philosophers.  I'm sure that if you visit a truck stop, a tractor pull, or a sports bar you'll find nothing but budding Schopenhaurs.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The most insight comment in the entire post.  That is clearly evident. 

When arguing over the nature of a particular subject, for the most part, we tend to deal with abstractions. Thus, everything i said regarding masculinity and femininity was referring to purely abstract conceptions. As Weininger indicated, no woman is entirely feminine while no men is entirely masculine, all thought most women are most certainly feminine, and vice versa. Thus, when i say that femininity is characterized by certain particular traits, it does not automatically mean this applies to all women. 
[\quote]

Which then means that the practical application of this entire line of reasoning is suspect, does it not? So this leads to the major value proposition of this entire discussion- so what?  What's the point, beyond a possible need for self-gratification?

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Weininger suggested that the classification of gender based solely on genitalia is an approximate measure. That we all have something of either sex from a deeper biological point of view. Essentially, none of us is 100% male or 100% female, and human variety relies entire on the proportion of feminine or masculine biological make up we carry within ourselves. The implications are enormous. It would explain many facets of human behavior, including homosexuality, or feminine achievement in fields generally dominated by men.

Umm-- what you have summarized here is completely in alignment with the Taoist notion of duality.  It's not that new an idea. Although I'll certainly agree with you on this notion that we all have both masculine and feminine natures within us.

[Florestan]

Women have their feet set squarely on the ground. Men tend to gaze at clouds porn when she isn't looking.

Fixed. 

[jowcol]

Fixed. 

I believe this is called pursuing high minded ideals on the internet.