The Mona Lisa Curse

[jowcol]

I never directly stated that women are inferior, i argued that their minds are inherently different from that of males. An argument cannot be offensive in and of itself, it can only be correct or incorrect.

Just in case there is any doubt:

Even as a kid i knew there was something inherently different about females. They were utterly incapable of hero worship and that sense of wonderment which derives from contemplating purely conceptual ideas which is characteristic for most of the fantasies and interests entertained by any imaginative boy. Females have always appeared to be ruthlessly materialistic, always concerned with the tangible basics of life with little to no interest for anything conceptual or fantastical. The materialistic nature of women has the effect of dragging men into the ground whenever females are around, which actually interferes with male creativity.

I would say a LOT of the language here would be considered pejorative, ("utterly incapable", "ruthlessly materialistic", etc).  I don't think it shows much scholarship on the topic.  You can explore from the works of Jung to the pop-psychology of Men are From Mars, Women are for Venus, and find a much more balanced discussion on the topic, and possibly something we could carry into music. 

And yes,  Scarpia,  I didn't laugh at this one.  My major reaction was more one of sympathy for anyone who'd need to go through life saddled with such assumptions. 

[Scarpia]

And yes,  Scarpia,  I didn't laugh at this one.  My major reaction was more one of sympathy for anyone who'd need to go through life saddled with such assumptions.

One can feel sorry for characters such as JdP.   The problem comes when such a person actually gains a position from which he or she can have an influence on others.   What if JdP becomes the assistant manager of a 7/11.  Then other employees will be subject to his "theories."

[Bulldog]

And yes,  Scarpia,  I didn't laugh at this one.  My major reaction was more one of sympathy for anyone who'd need to go through life saddled with such assumptions.

My sympathy would go out to any female who went through life saddled with Josquin.

[(poco) Sforzando]

JdP: "i [sic] just have an intransigent devotion to what i believe to be the truth."

As Francis Bacon begins his essay On Truth, "'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer."

JdP: "An argument cannot be offensive in and of itself, it can only be correct or incorrect."

Aristotle in his Rhetoric claimed that all argument is based on three types of appeal: ethos, or the character of the speaker; pathos, or the emotional appeal of the argument; and logos, or the appeal to reason. Argumentation is not simply a matter of providing facts and evidence (not that you typically do any of that); it is also a matter of attempting to persuade the reader or listener that one is an ethical person who attempts to speak to the values of one's audience. By that classic definition, arguments can most definitely be offensive (and you certainly succeed in that). Do you think, for example, that there is no appeal to ethos and pathos in the peroration to Lincoln's second inaugural address?

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

[DavidW]

One can feel sorry for characters such as JdP.   The problem comes when such a person actually gains a position from which he or she can have an influence on others.   What if JdP becomes the assistant manager of a 7/11.  Then other employees will be subject to his "theories."

I imagine at the same store Sean and papageno will work there too, and they can discuss the meaning of art, the nature of genius and how women are filth all day long!   They won't get any work done, let the coffee go stale but that wouldn't really be any different from any other 7/11.

[Josquin des Prez]

I would say a LOT of the language here would be considered pejorative, ("utterly incapable", "ruthlessly materialistic", etc).  I don't think it shows much scholarship on the topic.  You can explore from the works of Jung to the pop-psychology of Men are From Mars, Women are for Venus, and find a much more balanced discussion on the topic, and possibly something we could carry into music. 

You are confusing emphasis in pertaining to a concept relating to a being with harshness directed at that being in itself. It is impossible for me to argue that women are inherently inferior, since inferiority has no meaning in a theory which dictates men and women are two halves of a single entity. The one cannot exist without the other therefore inferiority is irrelevant. Liberals of course will argue that men and women are two single, separate entities and for them the idea of equality between the sexes is paramount, even in the face of surmounting evidence in the different level of achievement between men and women (a difference which is then explained away with the idea that women have been oppressed. No evidence necessary since the existent disparity is proof enough, once you have established a priori that there are no significant differences among the sexes).

[Josquin des Prez]

Aristotle in his Rhetoric claimed that all argument is based on three types of appeal: ethos, or the character of the speaker; pathos, or the emotional appeal of the argument; and logos, or the appeal to reason. Argumentation is not simply a matter of providing facts and evidence (not that you typically do any of that); it is also a matter of attempting to persuade the reader or listener that one is an ethical person who attempts to speak to the values of one's audience. By that classic definition, arguments can most definitely be offensive (and you certainly succeed in that). Do you think, for example, that there is no appeal to ethos and pathos in the peroration to Lincoln's second inaugural address?

What you are describing is rethoric. By argument i 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? But since we are speaking of philosophy, what do you think of Schopenhauer, and his aphorisms regarding women? Are his arguments also offensive?

[Scarpia]

It is impossible for me to argue that women are inherently inferior, since inferiority has no meaning in a theory which dictates men and women are two halves of a single entity.

The idiocy of what you post here could be put forward of proof of the inability of the male of the species to reason at all.  The assertion that (according to your hair-brain theory) men and women are two halves of a single entity does not exclude one being inferior and one being superior, which is what you imply, since you supply an endless litany of things women are supposedly incapable of. 

[Florestan]

If Sokal himself was serious he would realize that his test provided anecdotal evidence at best.  It could be that by chance it went to a reviewer/editor who was overwhelmed with work at that moment and thought "what's the harm if I accept this paper without reading it, it's probably fine."  To prove, as you claim, that there is no difference between a hoax and a peer reviewed article a systematic study would have to be done.

I don't disagree, but my whole point is that peer-review is not infallible and should not be taken as a guarantee of quality.

Beyond that, it is widely known that lots of stuff gets published in the academic press which is not terribly interesting, the real criteria is whether academic work is extensively cited by other academic publications.

I know. That's why academic work has reached such low levels that a high-school student of the late 19th century would be ashamed of.

[Josquin des Prez]

The idiocy of what you post here could be put forward of proof of the inability of the male of the species to reason at all.  The assertion that (according to your hair-brain theory) men and women are two halves of a single entity does not exclude one being inferior and one being superior, which is what you imply, since you supply an endless litany of things women are supposedly incapable of.

If men and women are two halves of a single entity, it obviously means that each is both superior and inferior to the other. Incidentally, it is not I, but feminists who are usually the ones at fault of claiming superiority upon the other sex. Bernard Chapin has run a few videos on the subject which provide much amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHyxhvPMiTQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxfA5Wb7K0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9rI0MbAACI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASMxV4V_VA

[Scarpia]

I know. That's why academic work has reached such low levels that a high-school student of the late 19th century would be ashamed of.

You have no support for that claim.  With computers and word processors it is very very easy to generate and publish documents.  That doesn't mean that among the onslaught of uninteresting documents there aren't just as many truly exceptional documents as there used to be.

[Scarpia]

If men and women are two halves of a single entity, it obviously means that each is both superior and inferior to the other.

The fact that you consider these word games "reasoning" the the most telling bit of information here.   

[Florestan]

Do you think, for example, that there is no appeal to ethos and pathos in the peroration to Lincoln's second inaugural address?

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

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

[Josquin des Prez]

You have no support for that claim.

The difference in the growth of artistic and scientific discovery from 1850 to 1900, and 1900 to 1950 alone compared with the poor advancements we made in either field since 1950 is proof enough. 

[Josquin des Prez]

The fact that you consider these word games "reasoning" the the most telling bit of information here.   

Perhaps you are unclear as to the meaning of the word "half".

[Florestan]

With computers and word processors it is very very easy to generate and publish documents. 

Precisely. In the times of yore what was needed to generate and publish academic work was knowledge, reason and thinking. Nowadays all you need is a well formated document, conformity to the prevalent jargon and orthodoxy and hundreds of citations from previously published papers.

[jowcol]

You are confusing emphasis in pertaining to a concept relating to a being with harshness directed at that being in itself.

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

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

It is impossible for me to argue that women are inherently inferior, since inferiority has no meaning in a theory which dictates men and women are two halves of a single entity. The one cannot exist without the other therefore inferiority is irrelevant.

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. 

Liberals of course will argue that men and women...  No evidence necessary since the existent disparity is proof enough, once you have established a priori that there are no significant differences among the sexes).

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

My arguments are ontologically arrived, and ontology is a perfectly legitimate tool for philosophical discourse. Scientific evidence is available of course, but to me it is "the science of beings qua beings" that holds priority, not the facts that surround them.

[jowcol]

You have no support for that claim.  With computers and word processors it is very very easy to generate and publish documents.  That doesn't mean that among the onslaught of uninteresting documents there aren't just as many truly exceptional documents as there used to be.

As an amusing aside, you may wish to generate a technical paper using SCI-Gen, which uses a "content-free grammar" to create mock technical papers.  One of them made its way into a refereed conference:

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

[Scarpia]

Precisely. In the times of yore what was needed to generate and publish academic work was knowledge, reason and thinking. Nowadays all you need is a well formated document, conformity to the prevalent jargon and orthodoxy and hundreds of citations from previously published papers.

Again, claimed without evidence.  In my experience the difficulty is that any infinitesimal advance or variation on what is already known and published gets published again.  The remarkable results are still there, they are swimming in an ocean of flotsam.

Aside from that, if you ever went to the library and looked up a random issue of one of the elite scientific journals of the past you won't find them filled with unalloyed gold.  Even in the best of them, such as Philosophical Magazine, you will find a remarkable amount of meticulously written drivel alongside the famous articles by the likes of Faraday, Joule and Maxwell.

[Florestan]

The remarkable results are still there, they are swimming in an ocean of flotsam.

Maybe. The problem is that it is precisely that flotsam that ensures one tenure, prestige and a long publications list.