I was reading some of the current posts on BC Holmes' website. One of hir posts mentioned that sie would like to read more advanced stuff , not just the average androgyne 101 stuff. It got me thinking as to what type of stuff would advanced AG stuff contain, or what type of stuff goes beyond the beginning. And if so, I would be one person willing to pursue such topics.
QuoteTaking It To The Next Level
Instead of repeating the same '101' discussions about class, race, (parenting, trans issues), etc., how can we facilitate a more advanced discussion of these issues?
Certainly the first thing that came to my mind was Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. I also thought of more stuff relationship oriented and even community oriented. The old "lets band together" isnt the community image that came to me , rather a "How can one person interact and influence those around them in a positive manner".
Now maybe there is no such thing as these things being advanced AG stuff. So more important to me is just asking the questions "After the looks, thoughts, and mind, what comes next?" Some of the older members might be best to give some insight. If not answers, what sorta realms or areas are along the lines where solutions might lay.
K/K,
I guess I could use a little 101.
Does an androgyne favor male or female characteristics?
Can an androgyne start as a genetic woman or man?
..................................
What characteristics does an androgyne favor?
Example physical strength is very useful when working in construction. However too much T reduces the feminine side. How does an androgyne balance physical looks with occupational needs?
W
Depends on what type of androgyne one is: intergender, fluid, bigender, Neutrois (undefined), 3rd gender.
Depends on the mix: ex. some 50/50, some unequal like 60/40.
Depends on Relationship and Gender Role defined and accepted. [friend, coworker, family, subordinate, partner (s)]
Depends on the situation, moment, and just plain reaction/though process. [reaction, influences, obstacles, opportunities, rewards, threats]
Depends on where one is in the path compared to where they would wish or eventually will reach. [objectives, goals, strategy, desires, fears, emotions, efforts]
I think.
K/K
Thanks.
Are there married couples that are androgynes in which the female becomes more male and the male becomes more female? Is this accomplished by HRT?
I think I know a couple of friends on this site that are 3rd gender.
Since genders are really on a continuum it makes sense that even if one changes gender they will still have characteristics of the prior gender. (We are not 100% male or 100% female.)
Do androgynes have cosmetic sugery to better fit a mix such as 60% female and 40% male?
W/E
Sometimes. (I have read of one such couple where both partners where androgynous) and hrt was involved
Most the time, from the experiences I have read here at this site, it doesnt end up this way.
Most the time it is mainly androgynes are psychosocial and roles, not primarily biophysiological.
Asexuality and Pansexuality are common from what I read from others.
A few androgynes that I know live alone and dont have a partner or relationship, or have recently broken up troubled incompatible relationships and are asexual. Either by choice or by circumstance.
And when it does become biophysiological (desire and even pursue hrt and/or cosmetic surgeries), most the time its only one of the partners. (I know of like only 5 experiences in addition to myself where this happens.)
Although there is at least one that I know of where both transformations happened (Just like there are some trans couples of mtf and ftm). And there is a chance that a IS / AG or 2 bio original girls or 2 bio original boys now androgynes are together. Androgyne is a rare form of TG (or way of thinking) as you can see by the population at this site compared to the others groups. So definately there is more information is scattered throughout the world and harder to find then more common TGs.
So yes your questions are good things to ponder when considering relationship compatibility, and relationship roles, and gender make up.
As well exploring possible Pansexual, Polysexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Paraphilia, Homosexual, and Heterosexual relationships.
I was reading a website that takes for granted that every person is underneath the illusion of a single self ,is a poly ego. Like an "internal village of many selves"
If this is true,and I think it is true ,then it's very easy to see how a person could appear male, female or something in between and shift around the gender spectrum at different times. Two spiritedness may be inherent in all of us but the crux is some of us are aware we are internal villages in our heads and some are not ,and because they don't know themselves and believe they are a rigid persona they will stubbornly maintain the same "face" to the world. Some are terrified to think there are others inside thier own head they cannot control with thier central ego.What is an anima or animus but an archetype speaking as a part or different aspect of the internal 'village of selves that we are on the inside that speaks to us in a dream state of the other?
http://www.growingaware.com/ALT_19_2004_Guidelines%20inner%20village.htm
Here is their newer website Inner village dialog..stuff
http://delos-inc.com/Reading_Room/reading_room.html
The collective or swarm idea doesn't completely work, there is clearly a single integrated consciousness that we can define a metaphysically individual identity. It just simply changes from time to time. :3
-- Brede
Quote from: Underground Panther on April 07, 2007, 12:56:56 AM
I was reading a website that takes for granted that every person is underneath the illusion of a single self ,is a poly ego. Like an "internal village of many selves"
If this is true,and I think it is true ,then it's very easy to see how a person could appear male, female or something in between and shift around the gender spectrum at different times. Two spiritedness may be inherent in all of us but the crux is some of us are aware we are internal villages in our heads and some are not ,and because they don't know themselves and believe they are a rigid persona they will stubbornly maintain the same "face" to the world. Some are terrified to think there are others inside thier own head they cannot control with thier central ego.What is an anima or animus but an archetype speaking as a part or different aspect of the internal 'village of selves that we are on the inside that speaks to us in a dream state of the other?
http://www.growingaware.com/ALT_19_2004_Guidelines%20inner%20village.htm
Here is their newer website Inner village dialog..stuff
http://delos-inc.com/Reading_Room/reading_room.html
This is interesting. So is this sorta saying that each of our characters in the village are the roles that we have to various people like friends, strangers, coworkers, partners, and organizations? If so, I can relate to that theory. If not, how does it differ? I do know we are different presented persons to different situations.
Quote from: Attis on April 07, 2007, 10:02:57 AM
The collective or swarm idea doesn't completely work, there is clearly a single integrated consciousness that we can define a metaphysically individual identity. It just simply changes from time to time. :3
-- Brede
The article does say there is a central part of the village, that being the inner child, which cements everything together. Which is sorta like a single integrating consciousness.
I don't buy it only because the current work in neurology implicates a different organizing method. No archtypes, no id, just a holonomic brain. But that's just me. :3
-- Brede wuvs holonomics. ^_^
You did use the word Holonomic. Are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_model?
If so explain and continue the explaination to how that view concerning the changing single consciousness a bit more, and how the view explains how one presents themself towards others and different people, at different times and places. And how our dreams help to organize our thoughts, versus have meaning. Its good to show that viewpoint also compared to the ego, id, archtype, unconcious, inner child system [more psychoanalytical]. Certainly a person should be well versed in both systems, theories, and facts. As well as other systems explaining consciousness (on down to the religious explainations).
Another approach is the Biological psychology approach.
How brain chemicals, injuries, and processes can affect personality and way one presents themself to others and to different people.
Biological Psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_psychology
http://personalitydisorders.suite101.com/article.cfm/brain_and_personality
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010205080513.htm
Ok so what can be explored from these areas of thoughts (systems)?
How could one looking at the animus/archetype/village of consciousness/unconsciousness use those methods and theories to expand, grow, and learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person? Certainly Bem used this theory more when sie/zhi uses the schema theory in explaining the elements of androgyny, and developing androgyny behavior.
How can the holonomic approach be used (methods and theories) to expand, help one grow, and help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person?
On the other hand what can biological-neurological psychology help one deal with the external world, and help one grow and develop. How can it help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, as a transgender person?
And what role does other views, such as religion play, or other systems?
Quote from: Wendy on April 06, 2007, 09:57:02 PM
Does an androgyne favor male or female characteristics?
Androgynes favor characteristics that are shared by both males and females, by either males or females, and by neither males nor females. Androgynes are fully aware of gender, but strongly feel the typical male/female assignment, roles, and gender expectations do not properly apply to them.
Quote from: Wendy on April 06, 2007, 09:57:02 PM
Can an androgyne start as a genetic woman or man?
Like the rest of humanity, nearly all Androgynes ARE genetic men and women. The rest are Intersex.
Quote from: Wendy on April 06, 2007, 09:57:02 PM
What characteristics does an androgyne favor?
In my opinion, the best of all characteristics! They are known as virtues, and virtues have have no gender assignment.
Quote from: Wendy on April 06, 2007, 10:33:07 PM
Do androgynes have cosmetic sugery to better fit a mix such as 60% female and 40% male?
As a whole, very few Androgynes seek surgery or HRT to modify their bodily form for the sake of their androgynous state of mind. There are however, individuals known as 'Neutrois', who desire surgery to remove all sex markers in their physical form. As for Androgynes that desire a combination of male and female form, I defer to the wisdom and observations of Ken/Kendra.
Quote from: Ken/Kendra on April 06, 2007, 10:56:43 PM
Androgyne is a rare form of TG (or way of thinking) as you can see by the population at this site compared to the others groups.
I beg to differ... Androgynes are far from being rare! Their numbers most likely exceed that of Transsexuals. Androgynes are usually a minority on Transgender websites because most Androgynes are well adjusted and have little need for support. (Most Androgynes do not know they are Androgyne.) Among those that do appear TG forums, some seek more information about gender and their unique gender identity. Some feel the need to know they are not alone. Still others are deeply troubled because they do not feel their 'gender' the way most people do. Some simply desire to socialize with other Androgynes. Androgynes are assets to TS/TG communities! Their very presence serves as a reminder that the traditional polar opposites are not all there is to know about gender.
-Emerald :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: Ken/Kendra on April 08, 2007, 03:41:45 AM
You did use the word Holonomic. Are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_model ?
Yeah.
QuoteIf so explain and continue the explaination to how that view concerning the changing single consciousness a bit more, and how the view explains how one presents themself towards others and different people, at different times and places. And how our dreams help to organize our thoughts, versus have meaning. Its good to show that viewpoint also compared to the ego, id, archtype, unconcious, inner child system [more psychoanalytical]. Certainly a person should be well versed in both systems, theories, and facts. As well as other systems explaining consciousness (on down to the religious explainations).
It doesn't, but it none of those other theories even work. For example, psychoanalytic theory [aka psycho-dynamics] has many holes. First, the biggest hole is that none of the features of psychoanalytic theory is falsifiable as a means to test it experimentally. Second, the majority of psychoanalytic theory also varies greatly depending on the person. And third, more nominal theories explaining personality operate less on the need to pull the determinism card than others.
QuoteHow could one looking at the animus/archetype/village of consciousness/unconsciousness use those methods and theories to expand, grow, and learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person? Certainly Bem used this theory more when sie/zhi uses the schema theory in explaining the elements of androgyny, and developing androgyny behavior.
I see this as a problem, because there is no anima/animus, not anywhere in the human body. What we're talking about when we're discussing androgyny is rather the values a person contains. What they see as valuable, what they do to protect it and to ensure it. These are things you can't validate through deterministic theories. Nor should one need to determine them through other models beyond self-identification and valuation.
QuoteHow can the holonomic approach be used (methods and theories) to expand, help one grow, and help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person?
It explains the nature of free will, memory storage, and thought processes.
QuoteOn the other hand what can biological-neurological psychology help one deal with the external world, and help one grow and develop. How can it help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, as a transgender person?
It doesn't, that's an epistemological issue. An issue of philosophy. It's also an issue of ethics. And an issue of aesthetics.
Again, philosophy. Psychology should never trump one's philosophy, because it is one's philosophy that defines the person, not one's psychology. Psychology is the study of how we think, how we feel, how we remember, and so no. It's the how for our abilities, but not the why. It can never fill in for our values. It can never replace our free will.
Quote]And what role does other views, such as religion play, or other systems?
I don't think it can ever explain religion, because religion every much like philosophy, and that requires free will and epistemological valuation. In essence, it requires us to ask questions, not science.
-- Brede
This world at the moment lives in a holism and statistical approach, rather than a reductionism. A mixture of rationalism, pragmaticism, and empiricism rather then skepticism and idealism.
Yes reductionism science can not observe meaning very well. Only changes in physiology and measurable changes, observation of cause effects, and the use of logic. Although current science does use statistics and responses from a large body of represented subjects to find patterns that can lead to theories and statistical facts and probablities. This world now uses samples from graphically represented populations to derive theories of social psychological types.
QuoteSocial scientists do use Cognitive methods which argues that mental function can be understood by quantitative, positivist and scientific methods, and that such functions can be described as information processing models. This is also largely a reductionist goal, with the belief that individual components of mental function (the 'cognitive architecture') can be identified and meaningfully understood. The second is the belief that cognition consists of discrete, internal mental states (representations or symbols) whose manipulation can be described in terms of rules or algorithms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(psychology)
QuoteSome social scientists use Phenomenology which presents the notion that the main characteristic of consciousness is that it is always intentional. Intentionality, which could be summarised as "aboutness" of thought, describes the basic structure of consciousness. Every mental phenomenon or psychological act is directed at an object — the intentional object. Every belief, desire, etc. has an object to which it refers: the believed, the desired. The property of being intentional, of having an intentional object, is the key feature which distinguishes mental/psychical phenomena from physical phenomena (objects), because physical phenomena lack intentionality altogether. Intentionality is the key concept by means of which phenomenological philosophy attempts to overcome the subject/object dichotomy prevalent in modern philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology
Certainly you can look at the some of the scientific theories of consciousness.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_Table_of_theories and see mixed.
All theories do have measurable, observable, consequences. Even psychoanalysis, you can observe what "works" and "doesnt work". If something is tried and doesnt work then its not a solution. Test it with several subjects and patterns can emerge. Its how science tests medicines, test marketing tries products, politicians get approval ratings, and is how the world runs at the moment. Where statistics of multiple subjects can together help determine or figure out the probability of a single instance. This is how behavorists and social scientist measure behavior, trends, cause-and-effects, control stimulus and the environment.
Lets break out of talk about methods, since doing so leads almost nowhere unless supported by alternative cause-effect and conclusive explainations. It really comes down to what the theories mean, if they are usable, practical, and what such theories can be used (usability) to help lead to the future. And what tools can be used to help analyze, make sense, and come to conclusions. Thats why I was asking how the holonomic brain model can be used to help others explain how people present oneself to others and to different people (which is what the psychoanalytical Inner Village presents). I was mainly trying to explore the changing single consciousness a bit more versus the collective swarm with inner child approach. After all, presenting a claim to falsehood, without presenting an alternative that explains it usefully and meaningful, is incomplete. So it would be helpful to continue with the explaination of the single consciousness with only slight changes to present the full alternative theory.
I get the ideas of nature of free will, memory storage, and thought processes which is a start to the theory. And the use of self-identification and valuation. Just looking to expand those theories to be practical, useful, and entails covering the said example presented in the inner village example, or present an alternative that does explain such phenomenon. It just needs a little more reach since those ideas dont quite reach interaction with others , and explain the variations in interaction with different persons, or the variations in gender expression. I can sorta imagine where one could explain it with a few more sentences or examples, but I not going to put words in your mouth, and your conclusion might differ from what I am thinking. Just take those 5 concepts and create the process that explains the process explained in the inner village example.
Quote from: Emerald on April 08, 2007, 06:09:53 AM
I beg to differ... Androgynes are far from being rare! Their numbers most likely exceed that of Transsexuals. Androgynes are usually a minority on Transgender websites because most Androgynes are well adjusted and have little need for support. (Most Androgynes do not know they are Androgyne.) Among those that do appear TG forums, some seek more information about gender and their unique gender identity. Some feel the need to know they are not alone. Still others are deeply troubled because they do not feel their 'gender' the way most people do. Some simply desire to socialize with other Androgynes. Androgynes are assets to TS/TG communities! Their very presence serves as a reminder that the traditional polar opposites are not all there is to know about gender.
-Emerald :icon_mrgreen:
Certainly I believe in a gender spectrum / gender spheres and that gender androgynes are common in the world (both tg and non tg), though consciously or unconsciously androgynous psychologically, in gender roles, communication styles, and occupations. I was referring to conscious androgyne is a rare form of tg (way of thinking), which is certainly those that read these posts represent. Thanks for the correction.
I will say for the record, being that I am an Objectivist, my basic ideas are radically different from most. Firstly, I don't buy into Phenomenology, since everything is an entity, not merely a sensation, for me. Secondly, I don't buy into most of the paradigms in psychology, although you could technically label me as a cognitivist only to the degree that I do think there's a real something between our ears which I think is indeed a mind. And thirdly, this pretty much sets up my views on gender identity to be radical, even for the post-modernists, to which I truncate it into our general identity rather than separate from it as many gender theorists attempt to do.
That's just for the record, beyond that, we can debate the wherefors and etc. :3
-- Brede
I was just trying to find the process using the 5 terms of free will, memory storage, thought processes, self-identification and valuation. And that there is a single integrated consciousness defined by a metaphyscial identity that changes from time to time.
For after all, these are just terms unless they are used in sentences to explain what happens (aka the processes). Its one thing to list a bunch of terms, but until they are used to explain the phenomenon, they dont mean anything in beyond themselves. You refuted the inner child in a village based off of the evidence:
Quote1.)The collective or swarm idea doesn't completely work, there is clearly a single integrated consciousness that we can define a metaphysically individual identity. It just simply changes from time to time.
2.) I don't buy it only because the current work in neurology implicates a different organizing method. No archtypes, no id, just a holonomic brain. But that's just me. :3
3.) It doesn't, but it none of those other theories even work.
4.)For example, psychoanalytic theory [aka psycho-dynamics] has many holes. First, the biggest hole is that none of the features of psychoanalytic theory is falsifiable as a means to test it experimentally.
5.)(continuing the many holes) Second, the majority of psychoanalytic theory also varies greatly depending on the person.
6.)(last of many holes) And third, more nominal theories explaining personality operate less on the need to pull the determinism card than others.
7.)I see this as a problem, because there is no anima/animus, not anywhere in the human body. What we're talking about when we're discussing androgyny is rather the values a person contains. What they see as valuable, what they do to protect it and to ensure it. These are things you can't validate through deterministic theories. Nor should one need to determine them through other models beyond self-identification and valuation.
Now whats the story with the 5 terms and one concept.
Concept: And that there is a single integrated consciousness defined by a metaphyscial identity that changes from time to time.
Terms:1.) free will
2.) memory storage
3.) thought processes
4.) self-identification
5.) and valuation.
Tell us the story of what happens. And provide some mention to the scientific data and measurements backing such assumptions and theories (because after all you are an objectivist and leaving such things out would go against such claim making it subjective and intrinsic). [Objectivist= conception of knowledge and values as "objective", rather than as "intrinsic" or "subjective".]
The other paradigms of psychology can be judged true or false (or partially true or false) based off of the results of wheither they work, or dont work statistically to a population representing reality. And thus testing the merits of such theories, rules, methods, and processes. Measurable and sometimes near absolute.
1.) free will.
This is axiomatic due to the nature of the mind in the context that it's the starting point. Choice, essentially. There's no given intrinsic antecedents that define it beyond one basic proviso: the freedom to think otherwise. That's all there is to it. As for any scientific evidence? Science currently has no evidence either way. What science does have is questions as to why it seems people have a feeling of free will, and it really is. Some scientists conclude it's illusion, others are not so eager to abandon it. So, at this time it's unquantified beyond epistemology and metaphysics.
2.) memory storage
This one has already been cracked, they looked at something called the "Bill Clinton" neurons, or essentially neurons that responded faster to certain kinds of sensations than others. Essentially, this implied that neurons had to have some mechanism that allowed them operate intelligently, such that their behavior was not simply random. This was validated in a study on neurons, where they found a particular molecule seems to store some data inside each neuron for its processing. I'll find the URLs to both articles later on.
3.) thought processes
Again, science only knows a little bit about, what is known is that no one can decode the specific neurological representations of thought. This means currently science cannot quantify its nature beyond the fact that it does occur [through the old 1960s cognitivist experiments on rats and other animals].
4.) self-identification
This could be a combination of scientific and philosophical inquiries. Scientifically, it's simply self-reference. Philosophically, it's an issue of how one judges one's own actions and thoughts, and how one integrates them for one's own purpose. Essentially, this is a form of psycho-epistemological theory, it's not fully formed to my knowledge, but it's there, being worked upon.
5.) and valuation.
Same as #4.
As for a story, it's pretty simple. The mind evolves from basic propositions that one makes about the world around them, via volition [aka free will], to more complex propositions and self valuations [introspection]. This is all from the stand point of philosophy because science only tells the how of things working, but the intent nor the purpose thereof. Purpose and intent are outside the scope of science. Therefore, any demand that it be explained by science would be a contradiction to the nature of science such that it's a demand that it acts both as philosophy and as scientific inquiry. Science in this regard is the subset of philosophy, but in itself still does not do all the work of philosophy, so again contradictions would arise by demanding a philosophical explanation of theory of the mind from science.
-- Brede
Fair enough that the terms explained a bit more the processes.
Does all this explain (or document) how people present themselves differently, sometimes using different gender expressions, behavior, and characteristics at different times, rather than than a single constant personage.
We saw 7 reasons why not to follow the inner village and psychoanalytical views. Lets see a the full statement of the objective version of what happens, and how the supporting reasons back up those processes.
As for Ayn Rand some of hir beliefs are questioned and not necessarily objective. I would like to hear how such Objectivism achieved these beliefs or assumptions. Here are 5 controversial issues with Ayn. After all, one can judge the results of any system, to see if they work, like I stated above. After reading these, I would like to see the psycho-analytical versions, or the village versions.
1.)View of femininity: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man."
2.)View of Sex: sex is the highest celebration of our greatest values. Sex is a physical response to intellectual and spiritual values – a mechanism for giving concrete expression to values that could otherwise only be experienced in the abstract. "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."
3.)View on Women being President: In a Playboy magazine interview, Rand stated that women are not psychologically suited to be President and strongly opposed the modern feminist movement, despite supporting some of its goals.
4.)View on Homosexuality: According to remarks at the Ford Hall forum at Northeastern University in 1971, Rand's personal view was that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting." "There is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality" because "it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises."
5.)View on Businesses discriminating: Rand defended the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, or any other criteria. Rand's defenders argue that her opposition to government intervention to end private discrimination was motivated by her valuing individual rights above civil (due to a rejection of the concept of "collective rights") and therefore her view did not constitute an endorsement of the morality of the prejudice per se. Rand argued that no one's rights are violated by a private individual's or organization's refusal to deal with him, even if the reason is irrational.
Throw in Ayn's view on gender roles just for kicks:
QuoteRand's views on gender roles have created some controversy. While her books championed men and women as intellectual equals (for example, Dagny Taggart, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged was a hands-on railroad executive), she thought that the differences in the physiology of men and women led to fundamental psychological differences that were the source of gender roles. Rand denied endorsing any kind of power difference between men and women, stating that metaphysical dominance in sexual relations refers to the man's role as the prime mover in sex and the necessity of male arousal for sex to occur.
How would Androgyny fit into hir beliefs using the objective approach that she followed, despite the dichotomy of the two gender separate polarity.
Quote1.)View of femininity: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man."
This is partly right, and I am critiquing Rand here. When a woman looks to a man, it's not as a superior as it were, but as a hero, as the best thing she can have in her life. Not to be a slave to, but to earn. Equally, men ought to look for the best in women, looking for something to earn in kind. In this context, it's the virtues that make the man and the woman. Rand pretty much injected more than the virtues in her analysis, probably from her own personal sexual experiences in her life rather than looking at it coolly as it should have been approached [remember she wrote her psycho-sexual thesis at the height of her affair with Nathanial Branden, and later on quietly revoked some of her ideas...].
Quote2.)View of Sex: sex is the highest celebration of our greatest values. Sex is a physical response to intellectual and spiritual values – a mechanism for giving concrete expression to values that could otherwise only be experienced in the abstract. "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."
Oh, I totally agree with Rand on this point. Sex that is empty is merely wrestling in bed. Sex that means something is the most worthwhile thing you can have in your life. How many times I've had to tell my sister that, and how many times her heart was broken that men saw her as a vessel for immediate gratification rather than the end itself.
Quote3.)View on Women being President: In a Playboy magazine interview, Rand stated that women are not psychologically suited to be President and strongly opposed the modern feminist movement, despite supporting some of its goals.
Rand was a bit daffy at that time for the same reason at #1.
Quote4.)View on Homosexuality: According to remarks at the Ford Hall forum at Northeastern University in 1971, Rand's personal view was that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting." "There is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality" because "it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises."
She revoked that statement in 1976 in a private conversation with a friend. She stated she didn't know whether or not it was wrong then. In fact, she was reading at the time the possibility of a biological origin for homosexuality. So, she too was changing with the facts.
Quote5.)View on Businesses discriminating: Rand defended the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, or any other criteria. Rand's defenders argue that her opposition to government intervention to end private discrimination was motivated by her valuing individual rights above civil (due to a rejection of the concept of "collective rights") and therefore her view did not constitute an endorsement of the morality of the prejudice per se. Rand argued that no one's rights are violated by a private individual's or organization's refusal to deal with him, even if the reason is irrational.
I totally agree with her. I don't want to work with fundamentalist Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc, if they don't like me. Nor do I wish to sanction their values by frequenting their businesses. This freedom to be apart is a freedom we all earn. The problem comes when one party decides to take the power of government into their hands to force a single ideal. In this case, we've seen this with the Jim Crow laws, which prior to their existence, most of the South never had any segregation at all.
QuoteQuoteRand's views on gender roles have created some controversy. While her books championed men and women as intellectual equals (for example, Dagny Taggart, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged was a hands-on railroad executive), she thought that the differences in the physiology of men and women led to fundamental psychological differences that were the source of gender roles. Rand denied endorsing any kind of power difference between men and women, stating that metaphysical dominance in sexual relations refers to the man's role as the prime mover in sex and the necessity of male arousal for sex to occur.
How would Androgyny fit into hir beliefs using the objective approach that she followed, despite the dichotomy of the two gender separate polarity.
She would argue it's a valid choice on the grounds of virtues. You are not seeking to be just an animal of the field, you are seeking to be a human. You are seeking the highest values in yourself, to do the best you can do. Androgyny for me is part of my highest values, and I seek to reflect it in my being.
-- Brede
The only measurable data and facts that I see in any of the above is that men and women are physiologically different. And I suppose one could say even 2 different women are physiologically different. Thats the only measurable data out of the 6 issues above.
Rand's Femininity:
Hero worship is not a scientific term. It cant be measured, observed, and is subjective.
Desire to look up to man doesnt isnt measurable. It can only be inferred from observations. Also one can observe desires to look up to women, and desires to look down upon both, as well as look equally upon each other. And even then the sentence is telling an intention and priority that may not exist. Women may not hold their partner as the most important thing in their life, wheither male, female, androgyne, or other. Work, children, caring for other, sports, money, and many other things can be the best thing in their life. And femininity looking down to men, could be a more seductive powerful women approach.
Rand's Sex: Values are subjective. Everyone doesnt have the same values. Certainly their are some universal more widely accepted values, but some change even culture to culture, person to person, family to family, belief to belief. Sex sometimes is merely wrestling in bed, sometime forced, or begrudged. Not good sex, or even traumatic. And the partners may have differing values and ideals towards sex. Certainly this is an idealist image of sex, not a scientific observation of measurable sexual processes and events. They are not absolute.
The responsibilities of the President or most leaders does not infer gender. Great leaders such as Cleopatra and modern days Margaret Thatcher who held Prime Minister officer one of the longest periods 1979 to 1990. Perhaps the most significant British politician in recent political history, she is also one of the most divisive, loved and loathed by citizens from across the political spectrum. These two examples prove with evidence that women can lead countries effectively. History itself supports such claims. Female physiological, Male physiological, or Intersexed physiological such differences can, have been, and will be no obstacle, except culturally created.
Homosexuality:
Revoking that statement was a smart move, since the original statement was one of popular opinion rather then biological and scientific based.
Discrimination:
Discrimination can and does lead to violence such as civil wars, revolts, and revolutions. (see internal strife such as IRA, genocides in africa, Hitler's holocaust, transgender killings, gay bashings, almost any revolution in history, LA riots from the Rodney King event, murder of Martin Luther King, Jr). Scientifically there is no evidence to support discrimination (which is the supposed basis for objectivism) as something any government should allow. Evidence supports that discrimination is learned, rather than biological. And is something that can lead to violence, a public matter of importance. Thats why for transgendered persons, having laws that prevent discrimination based on gender are many times important, and do eventually work. History shows that such laws enacted have worked much more effectively in the case of women and even race, than before without. Things arent perfect, but much better then in the past.
Quote from: Ken/Kendra on April 08, 2007, 10:06:59 PM
The only measurable data and facts that I see in any of the above is that men and women are physiologically different. And I suppose one could say even 2 different women are physiologically different. Thats the only measurable data out of the 6 issues above.
Measurable by what standard?
Rand's Femininity:
QuoteHero worship is not a scientific term. It cant be measured, observed, and is subjective.
By what standard? Remember, I never stated a single point that philosophy was science. You seem to mistake the two.
QuoteDesire to look up to man doesnt isnt measurable.
It can be measured in philosophy.
QuoteRand's Sex: Values are subjective. Everyone doesnt have the same values.
They have the same drive though, virtues are determined there. In this regard, the desire to live well is a universal property among all humans. Even among all non-human animals.
QuoteCertainly this is an idealist image of sex, not a scientific observation of measurable sexual processes and events. They are not absolute.
Because science cannot give you the why. You seem to mistake that science can magically give you WHYs where philosophy is the only determinant of such.
QuoteRevoking that statement was a smart move, since the original statement was one of popular opinion rather then biological and scientific based.
No, it was because Rand had no scientific data to prove it was not a moral choice. Remember, anything that is not chosen cannot be decided by morality. Being taller, or a different ethnicity, or having a certain set of physical traits are never chosen, therefore cannot be judged by morality. So, that's why she revoked the statement later. When the science started pouring in, she concluded with science.
QuoteDiscrimination can and does lead to violence such as civil wars, revolts, and revolutions. (see internal strife such as IRA, genocides in africa, Hitler's holocaust, transgender killings, gay bashings, almost any revolution in history, LA riots from the Rodney King event, murder of Martin Luther King, Jr). Scientifically there is no evidence to support discrimination (which is the supposed basis for objectivism) as something any government should allow.
Okay, this is where your argument totally fails. You cannot demand others to live by your ideals, period and end of story. It does not matter what the outcome is. All that matters is that when one acts in violence or fraud toward your person they have no right to do, because that in itself is anti-life. But, if they say they don't want to employee you, don't want you around their kids, don't want to give service to you at their business, that is a
moral right to do so. It is the
primary liberty that every human being enjoys: the freedom to be left alone, and to deny it is to deny the foundation of human existence: individuality. And in essence, you are also denying by antecedent claim, androgyny as a valid choice to live by since you cannot have androgyny if you deny individuality. Whether it's individuality in the choice of whom you do business with, whom you employee, whom you allow to educate your children, whom you choose to associate, and so on. These are necessary functions of our primary right to liberty. And a function of our primary right to be ourselves [e.g. androgynous or otherwise]. And to claim science has any say on the rights of humans is a moral farce. Science tells you how things are composed. Science tells you how things work, but science does not tell you intent, purpose, choice, expression, and/or volition. These things
belong to the realm of philosophies, which deal in the unparticular, in the isolated parameters of existence. To deny this as well, is to deny the nature of science itself.
And the fact that you're pleading to collectivist scientism makes me wonder if you have a grasp of the issue at hand, which seems to me not even now related to androgyny, or any theory of gender. But it does seem to me that you want to truncate it into the issue. And I will oblige it by stating that all the actions of an androgyne or a genderqueer person is based on
valuation. Basically, what's more valuable to us at certain points versus others. Do we value our freedom? Do we value our choices? Do we value the attributes we come into world with? Do we value the attributes we gain over time? And so on, these can never be decided by science, ever. Science can't tell you why you love a certain film, or a novel, or why you choose a certain moral theory over another. Philosophy can, because the realm of values is indeed unparticular.
Also, this plead to another definition of objective and objectivity is very questionable considering that all mental entities are objective in the fact that they are isolated in their properties. Any entity that can have its properties isolated by mental focus, by empirical observation, or by a combination of the two is objective. And that objectivity is possible, otherwise how do we derive knowledge? By chance? Or are there atoms of objective thoughts that exist in all matter prior to their formation in our heads? Clearly, the existence of objective knowledge balks at the contradiction of the implicit definitions you derived by virtue that knowledge is not a material entity, but a mental one. Therefore, objective is defined as follows: any entity [mental or otherwise] for which anyone can isolate and extract properties thereof to derive conclusions [meaning] and/or formulate new entities [mental or otherwise] in kind. Objectivity follows as a state for which an entity [mental or otherwise] has properties which can be isolated and extracted.
So if you want an answer to your identity, don't ask a scientist, unless s/he is versed in philosophy, therefore can give you a valid answer. Science can tell you your aspirin is working, but it can't tell you why you got the headache in the first place. :3
-- Brede
Question ObjectiveThe only thing I asked for in the beginning was "what" replaces (full details) the explaination of the inner child and the village theory that Underground Panther presented. To explain how we present ourselves as different gender behavior to different people. What I got was the Objective Movement philosophy listed with 5 terms and 1 concept, which doesnt explain the process or hypothesis clearly, as to what actually happened in the presented theory, which was refuted in 7 points. So I wanted to see how the objecivism proved the 6 controversial issue points as being correct despite the absence from being realistic and practical in any human society. Rather it seems as though its just a mental imaginary philosophy for stuff like the fiction books she wrote. Certainly fiction is just good to think about, not always practical in real life. Fun to talk about though.
QuoteThe mind evolves from basic propositions that one makes about the world around them, via volition [aka free will], to more complex propositions and self valuations [introspection].
This advance from the concept and terms, didnt yet explain the phenomenon above.
Discrimination (especially gender)
QuoteDiscrimination can and does lead to violence such as civil wars, revolts, and revolutions. (see internal strife such as IRA, genocides in africa, Hitler's holocaust, transgender killings, gay bashings, almost any revolution in history, LA riots from the Rodney King event, murder of Martin Luther King, Jr). Scientifically there is no evidence to support discrimination (which is the supposed basis for objectivism) as something any government should allow.
Certainly one can choose to decide to discriminate. Others can choose (in your words, have the moral right) to retaliate. Laws do not protect people, nor force people. Rather they state possible enforce consequences if such action is chosen (retaliation). Sometimes the retaliation is called justice.
Freedom is a great thing. When someone unfairly discriminates me, my freedom diminishes. Freedom does exist in many countries now days.
Some people do not have the freedom. In more Totalitarianism type societies (communist, some emperors, some kings, dictators) that freedom is non existent. Although protective freedoms are not always needed, by doing so creates a punishment for not adhering to such protected freedom. In this case, if a business discriminates and such protections are in the law, they are liable to be sued. Period. Justice would allow such retaliation. And the judicial systems would have a basis for demanding financial punishment for doing such discrimination. This is the reality of free thinking countries and societies today.
Just like sex and race discrimination are protected in many constitutions, androgyny, and gender are and can be protected. It doesnt prevent others from choosing to do such discriminating actions, but creates a punishment for being judged guilty on such charges. Although sex and race discrimination laws are in existence, doesnt mean there are no women, men, africans, hispanics, asian, etc... So creating such protective laws for gender would not mean that androgyny would disappear.
This site has an anti discrimination clause. Discriminate here (which one can choose to attempt) and justice and retaliation (aka punishment) will be given (aka banned from site).
Liberty isnt a freedom to do what you want. As you can see from here, liberty comes in different flavors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty.
Violence towards transgendered persons is very real. Injustice is very real. Read the news clippings that come across posted on this site. TG fired from job for being a tg, person killed for being a tg. These are results of learned discrimination. Justice should demand punishment for the firing of a person qualified that is tg, as well as a person killed for being tg.
Being discriminated because of gender is very real. Its something you and I have encountered or may encounter mutliple times in the future.
Further femininityQuoteQuoteDesire to look up to man isnt measurable.
It can be measured in philosophy.
On an individual basis, not on a all inclusive basis. To be able to generally state that part of the statement as fact or reason, since reason does dictate there are exceptions to the statement in that women can look up, down, or equally to women, men, or intersexed (as well as other variations), logic and reason dictates the untruthfulness of such conclusion. And the philosophical rules of truth of reason and logic dictate that there is ample evidence, facts, and reasons show femininity can be towards other women, and feminine women can even look down towards men, even while retaining femininity towards other women or androgynes.
And the statment doesnt address the masculinity in women, which I dont know how she stood on that issue.
SexQuoteQuoteRand's Sex: Values are subjective. Everyone doesnt have the same values.
They have the same drive though, virtues are determined there. In this regard, the desire to live well is a universal property among all humans. Even among all non-human animals.
Yes the drive is there. Ayn made it quite clear that that she didnt believe sex was drives.
QuoteFar from being a debasing animal instinct, she believed that sex is the highest celebration of our greatest values.
Animal instinct = drive
QuoteDrive: A need state energized by stimulus deprivation , stimulus apprehension, or dread that gets you going, but doesn't tell you where. When coupled with cognition, ignites something called behavior , and when defined as combined becomes undefined, such as consciousness, free will.
I believe sex is on the most basic form a drive, which combines with our preferences (or lack of preferences in some cases), and interacts with fears, dreams, obsessions, sometimes fantasies. And sometimes its just sometimes its just a tool. Sometimes its something to fear: aka rape, std, prostitution. Androgynes many times are pansexual in that the gender of the partner doesnt really matter.
And sometimes that drive is lacking as in asexual, or is directed towards the self as in autosexual (by choice or circumstance).
Other notes on scienceQuoteBecause science cannot give you the why. You seem to mistake that science can magically give you WHYs where philosophy is the only determinant of such.
The philosophy of science (logic and reason) are not separate from science. Its a part of the scientific method. The scientific method is the current measurement and tool of science, and judge to the validity of any conclusion, truth of statement, hypothesis made, and evidence/facts/measures/reasoning/methods/logic used. The scientific method is science together with the knowledge gathered by such methods.
Quote from: Attis on April 08, 2007, 10:48:53 PM
Measurable by what standard?
QuoteObjectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-31-1351-About_Objectivism.aspx
Philosophies try to explain how you know or can know something is true. There are various schools of thoughts each differing and subjective to the rules each follows. The measurable comments are based off of the earlier stated reason that "First, the biggest hole is that none of the features of psychoanalytic theory is falsifiable as a means to test it experimentally." Science is based off of the scientific method.
QuoteScientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning
In
philosophy, reason is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic—terms with which reason shares heritage. Philosophy exists as a metaphysic to help define what is true.
Pure objective philosophy of reason is logic and agruments. Philosophy of reason and logic to find truths and meaning is science.
QuotePure philosophy of reason is logic and arguments. The act of using reason to derive a conclusion from certain premises, using a given methodology. The two most commonly used explicit methods of reasoning are deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning; abductive reasoning and analogy are also forms of reasoning used in this context.
Facts are collected (observable, empirical, measurable evidence) and hypothesis are made and then tested.
QuoteA hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena
Statistics can give a probablity of cause and effect.
Conclusions can be made based of the tests, evidence, and truthfulness of the hypothesis.
QuoteAbductive reasoning starts from a set of accepted facts and infers to their most likely, or best, explanations.
Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it.
Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general.
Quote from: Ken/Kendra on April 09, 2007, 01:28:32 AMThe only thing I asked for in the beginning was "what" replaces (full details) the explaination of the inner child and the village theory that Underground Panther presented.
Panther produced a theory that is not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific.
QuoteTo explain how we present ourselves as different gender behavior to different people. What I got was the Objective Movement philosophy listed with 5 terms and 1 concept, which doesnt explain the process or hypothesis clearly, as to what actually happened in the presented theory, which was refuted in 7 points.
You have not refuted any single point given, you simply gave an opinion.
QuoteSo I wanted to see how the objecivism proved the 6 controversial issue points as being correct despite the absence from being realistic and practical in any human society. Rather it seems as though its just a mental imaginary philosophy for stuff like the fiction books she wrote. Certainly fiction is just good to think about, not always practical in real life. Fun to talk about though.
Fallacy, you're assuming that because it's philosophical therefore it's not true. The fact is this, thousands of people follow the philosophy in their lives, myself included, therefore it is of enormous value. Rand never stated that her philosophy was the norm for which everyone follows, but rather how things ought to be in that it improved the lives of people. Ought =/= Is, not for me, and not for Rand. You seem to confuse many things in the discussion.
QuoteThis advance from the concept and terms, didnt yet explain the phenomenon above.
It doesn't have to, that's the way philosophy works. Neurological activity is what you want to know, the village argument does not provide any case studies, nor any experiments to validate its terms. This proposition as I've provided is talking about the general behavior of rational animals, whether they use neurological mechanisms, or gravity waves to represent these procedures. In short, they are not medium or substrate dependent, they are algorithmic.
QuoteCertainly one can choose to decide to discriminate. Others can choose (in your words, have the moral right) to retaliate. Laws do not protect people, nor force people. Rather they state possible enforce consequences if such action is chosen (retaliation). Sometimes the retaliation is called justice.
And how does discrimination truncate into complete disregard for human life? It doesn't, discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with the violation of the right to life. It simply one's right to be left alone. Whether it's irrational or not. You don't have the moral right, nor the legal right, to force anyone to like you, to employ you, and to love you. To do so is a moral absurdity and a legal one too.
QuoteFreedom is a great thing. When someone unfairly discriminates me, my freedom diminishes. Freedom does exist in many countries now days.
Fallacy yet again. Here are your freedoms as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence which echoes that of John Locke. Life [JL: Life], Liberty [JL: Liberty], and the Pursuit of Happiness [JL: Property]. So that's all you get, logically. Where are there positive rights in these three liberties? None. You don't have a right to a job. You don't have a right to a house. You don't have a right to be included in the lives of others. You get no positive rights. You get all negative rights, everyone gets them too because no law is required to enforce them save for in times where there are those that believe they have the positive right to divest you of them. And that's where we get justice, the protection and restitution of these violations of Life, Liberty, and Property [Pursuit of Happiness] come under justice, and therefore law. There is no moral basis for law to tell me to like fundy christians. Or to like people who wear green socks. Or to like kids. Or to even help them in any capacity. And so on. That's why you seem to be dodging every time on this.
QuoteSome people do not have the freedom. In more Totalitarianism type societies (communist, some emperors, some kings, dictators) that freedom is non existent. Although protective freedoms are not always needed, by doing so creates a punishment for not adhering to such protected freedom. In this case, if a business discriminates and such protections are in the law, they are liable to be sued. Period. Justice would allow such retaliation. And the judicial systems would have a basis for demanding financial punishment for doing such discrimination. This is the reality of free thinking countries and societies today.
More fallacies again, read the prior paragraph reply and carefully so.
QuoteJust like sex and race discrimination are protected in many constitutions, androgyny, and gender are and can be protected. It doesnt prevent others from choosing to do such discriminating actions, but creates a punishment for being judged guilty on such charges. Although sex and race discrimination laws are in existence, doesnt mean there are no women, men, africans, hispanics, asian, etc... So creating such protective laws for gender would not mean that androgyny would disappear.
You want positive rights. There are not afforded under the Constitution nor under a valid moral theory. Not even Kant, as I say to people.
QuoteLiberty isnt a freedom to do what you want. As you can see from here, liberty comes in different flavors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty.
Doesn't matter, because the Constitution only covers one kind of liberty, a liberty which requires
no governmental force and
no tyranny of the majority nor of the minority to enforce. It simply exists on its own, and it's called
negative liberty. And I, as a Constitutional Originalist, will abide any addition nor subtraction of it.
QuoteViolence towards transgendered persons is very real. Injustice is very real. Read the news clippings that come across posted on this site. TG fired from job for being a tg, person killed for being a tg. These are results of learned discrimination. Justice should demand punishment for the firing of a person qualified that is tg, as well as a person killed for being tg.
Then prosecute under the current negative liberty laws. Any violation of life, liberty, and/or property is not valid. You don't get extra laws because you're a green sock wearer. You get the same equal opportunities, but you don't get the same equal outcomes. That is how justice works. And that is how our world works.
QuoteOn an individual basis, not on a all inclusive basis.
Doesn't have to.
QuoteTo be able to generally state that part of the statement as fact or reason, since reason does dictate there are exceptions to the statement in that women can look up, down, or equally to women, men, or intersexed (as well as other variations), logic and reason dictates the untruthfulness of such conclusion. And the philosophical rules of truth of reason and logic dictate that there is ample evidence, facts, and reasons show femininity can be towards other women, and feminine women can even look down towards men, even while retaining femininity towards other women or androgynes.
Lets understand one key point. Intersexed conditions are never ever related to being androgynous in the regards to self-expression, psychology, and personal values. They are medical conditions, they are not trivial, and they are not here to support your ideas, nor mine. They are something for the realm of the medical sciences to discuss and to resolve the best courses to handle such individuals that have them. Therefore, that means the rest of our propositions are within the realm of aesthetics and ethics. That means we're philosophizing. No amount of science can save you from the fact that you're trying to leap from quantification of particular facts to unparticular aesthetic principles that have very little to do with each in a single bound. That's a problem here, because you're riding two horses that go two different ways, and essentially, they split your argument in half. I suggest you consider critically your current argument and look at it from value based logic. Consider what your goal is, consider what particulars in science really are valid in it. And divest yourself of those that don't.
QuoteAnd the statment doesnt address the masculinity in women, which I dont know how she stood on that issue.
Because Rand didn't really think it through. In Atlas Shrugged, her character Dagny Taggart could have been considered an androgyne due to the fact that she herself often did not consider having the highest of fashions to clothe herself in, nor did she put too much emphasis on her makeup, and so on. She did wear what was typical of women in general, but she did not attempt an overly emphasized display of femininity. In fact, on some cases in the book she jokingly said she was Mr Taggart of the family, since she ran the railroad and her brother didn't. Also, in her relationships with Rearden and D'Anconia, they were not based on a male and a female getting together rather two people that have the same passion for life getting together. And even Rearden seemed to have the same passion as he did for Dagny for D'Anconia. So, really, I don't see why you want gender roles to be so important, when it's personal values [virtues], that make the person. Not what signals of their preferred gender and sex are.
QuoteAnimal instinct = drive
No, and on the grounds that drives [desires] are not instinctual.
QuoteI believe sex is on the most basic form a drive, which combines with our preferences (or lack of preferences in some cases), and interacts with fears, dreams, obsessions, sometimes fantasies. And sometimes its just sometimes its just a tool. Sometimes its something to fear: aka rape, std, prostitution. Androgynes many times are pansexual in that the gender of the partner doesnt really matter.
Wrong again on the grounds that if one follows sexuality in this form, it denies the nature of the human mind. It simply makes a person surrender to sensation of sex, and to forsake the goal which humans can derive. So, again this part of your argument does not follow from the nature of being human. It's
sub-optimal.
QuoteAnd sometimes that drive is lacking as in asexual, or is directed towards the self as in autosexual (by choice or circumstance).
That's when people are not fully integrated.
QuoteThe philosophy of science (logic and reason) are not separate from science. Its a part of the scientific method. The scientific method is the current measurement and tool of science, and judge to the validity of any conclusion, truth of statement, hypothesis made, and evidence/facts/measures/reasoning/methods/logic used. The scientific method is science together with the knowledge gathered by such methods.
Actually, no scientist to my knowledge has to study philosophy, beyond logic that is. Therefore, no scientist has to be a philosopher. They take on statistical inferences based in mathematics, using that to isolate variables, and then to make a conclusion. No philosophy required, but it is required if you and I want to integrate their discoveries into philosophy, but not the other way around.
QuotePhilosophies try to explain how you know or can know something is true. There are various schools of thoughts each differing and subjective to the rules each follows. The measurable comments are based off of the earlier stated reason that "First, the biggest hole is that none of the features of psychoanalytic theory is falsifiable as a means to test it experimentally." Science is based off of the scientific method.
And the psycho-analytic theory has
no means to experiment with it. It's all based on case study. That's why behavioralism and cognitivism are often the primary schools of psychology in North America. And I believe Behavioralism is the dominant school in the UK and Europe.
QuoteIn philosophy, reason is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic—terms with which reason shares heritage. Philosophy exists as a metaphysic to help define what is true. ... Pure objective philosophy of reason is logic and agruments. Philosophy of reason and logic to find truths and meaning is science.
Not entirely true due to the fact that we have philosophy of law, ethics, and aesthetics.
So here's my summary as follows.
Reason requires of us to consider all possibilities, but more importantly some possibilities are not falsifiable, namely anything that declares something true but it doesn't provide a sufficient reason to accept it either in a case that it can never be false, or in a case where it's assumed automatically true without any antecedent propositions which are related to any axiomatically true premises. More importantly, Rand's aesthetics, as I've derived them rather than as she wrote them in the Romantic Manifesto, follow true from rational agents that look for the best in life. Now, neither I nor Rand have concluded that this the default state of human being, but it is the optimal state of human being in that humans that use the faculty of reason will follow a life based on virtues and not based on random feelings. Moreover, as this relates to androgyny, it means that androgyny is a value judgment, when we're not discussing individuals who are intersexed such that we're not taking in biology as the standard, rather we're taking our general capacity to reason as the standard. Therefore, no scientific study can explain virtue driven androgyny, because it's a quality of being that does not automatically come from our biology. It's emergent like our minds. It evolves, like our minds. And it's one of the sub-sums of our minds. For the fact that it does not pre-exist the person in biology, it exists at the time of the virtues chosen. []
-- Brede
I was watching a cartoon on tv with hir grandson, I think it was on PBS. One of the main characters was a dragon with 2 heads. One half was a boy, the other half was a girl. Pretty neat. I'm not sure what show it was. I am glad to see the media, especially children's show at least half way show some form of mixed being. Although the two are more like siamese conjoined twins, I think children more of see it as one being.
Yet each head is a different person onto itself. When we examine a human being it tends to be different. In neurology, it's found that despite that seemingly independent lobes of the brain, they do act in concert to each other. One possible explanation is found in the Orch-OR model of the brain, that each neuron is computing at the quantum scale, so each neuron is really acting as a compliment of the other neurons, his compliment is called quantum entanglement, where one particle spins up and its partner spins down, neurons could be, behaving as such but at a scale of millions of possible quantum entanglements per second or more. Thus, the brain, in purpose [and emergence] acts as one, and possible one with its nervous system as I posit as part of my work in AI [being that the nervous system is the perceptual engine that derives from the senses neurological events for the brain to work upon].
-- Brede
QuoteResearchers in the Netherlands have discovered that a region of the hypothalamus, located at the floor of the brain, is about 50 percent larger in men than in women, and almost 60 percent larger in men than in male-to-female transsexuals. If smallness of this brain structure is at all correlated with the feeling of being a woman, the results raise tantalizing possibilities that transsexuals may in a sense be more female than females.
QuoteSignificantly, the region of the hypothalamus does not differ in size between gay and straight men, and so it cannot be said to play a role in male sexual orientation. Other recent studies have focused on identifying minor brain discrepancies between homosexual and heterosexual men
http://etransgender.com/viewtopic.php?p=613
There are no studies of androgyne brains. Could one hypothesize androgyne brains are the in between.
Quotehuman male brains are, on average, approximately 10 percent larger than female brains. Certain brain areas in women, however, contain more nerve cells.
http://apu.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_genderAndTheBrain
Curious to see if brain size or nerve cells are in between.
QuoteImaging results found that women use areas on the right and left sides of the brain, while men only use areas on the left side to complete the test.
http://apu.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_genderAndTheBrain
Or if Androgynes have different brain areas used.
For now, only preliminary data is contained on the transsexual differences, and a hypothesis on androgynes are non existant and only based on that first study. Not that I can test it out.
I would definately donate my brain to science when I die, to explore such quest for knowledge and understanding.
I think in this regard, what has to be understood is that the hypothalamus portion of the brain does lots of things.
First, it acts, due to the corpus collusum[sp?], as a 'router' between the right and left hemispheres. Apparently in certain kinds of autism, this portion of the brain is nearly gone or atrophied.
Second, it acts a mood coordinator, handling attitude/temperament at certain times.
Third, it acts as a part of your satiety system, basically if it's over active you're going to be more hungry than in a person with a more depressed hypothalamus.
Fourth, it acts as a pathway for short term memory to be allocated into long term memory.
Fifth, it acts as a part of its mood coordination as handling your average arousal response. Like its behavior with satiety, over active probably means overactive arousal response [meaning just about everything gets your motor purrin'], and the inverse means you're a generally less 'arouse-able.'
Generally, this means it's sorta like the Swiss Army Knife of the brain since so many neurological pathways route through it. It does also explain why some people develop epileptic seizures and such, since all that activity sometimes causes strange synaptic activity that's not easily pinned down in the brain. (Disclaimer, this is my assessment, not valid as experimentally derived fact.) It also explains why identity is tightly bound around both it and the neocortex, in that it seems the neocortex sets the stage for whatever the hypothalamus will become in many regards as if both 'mirror' each other on issues of identity.
-- Brede
Notes on possible Errors from assuming any information here:Certainly there are no studies I know of on androgyne biology or brain differences. Only one can make assumptions based off of the small few transsexual versus cisgender studies, as to possible explainations. Explainations are not necessary to function, its just nice to know where science has looked for possible explainations. One of the studies explains many changes only occur post hrt, so be weary of taking any of this as gospel as to explaining how one 'is' or 'might be' androgyne or cross gender.
Photos and Diagrams(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu%2Fhbooks%2Fpathphys%2Fendocrine%2Fhypopit%2Fs-%253E-bleeped-%253C-it.jpg&hash=38617b1626a4aa0c63b4c6d954af0c87107ce692)(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu%2Fhbooks%2Fpathphys%2Fendocrine%2Fhypopit%2Fnettpit2.jpg&hash=28ace52dd471abe0e6c6d3026f20f83d1c2139ec)(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu%2Fhbooks%2Fpathphys%2Fendocrine%2Fhypopit%2Fportal.gif&hash=e2f4f22c1d50dab7e975d9d86753de88c96418d0)
These sections bellow have been cut coronally, and show only one side of the hypothalamus.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthalamus.wustl.edu%2Fcourse%2Fhypo2.gif&hash=2199e108eaa8ee33b72cc7f5e58a9b8c130c2cf4)(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthalamus.wustl.edu%2Fcourse%2Fhypo3.gif&hash=57e009fa1d4a842bd723c530bc47c0888b0abe4d)(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthalamus.wustl.edu%2Fcourse%2Fhypo4.gif&hash=327d6680a9b34c7477a7e08c56bb2eb95cf59018)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthalamus.wustl.edu%2Fcourse%2Fhypo1.gif&hash=1ad2cda8f7a747197fc97acbc5d8998e6a5c4046)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frds.yahoo.com%2F_ylt%3DA9iby4bv9xpG4nEBFDijzbkF%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTA4NDgyNWN0BHNlYwNwcm9m%2FSIG%3D129t7q3bk%2FEXP%3D1176258927%2F%2A%2Ahttp%253A%2F%2Fwww.balancingcenter.com%2Fimages%2FHypothalmus.jpg&hash=5c3b9b59df0e41bb2509032b3b4f07f0dbe075ed)
I found the original data and study info from the prior post stated dataA first study
2001: http://www.psy.jhu.edu/~kirwan/200.173/Swaab_H&B01.pdf and http://psy.ucsd.edu/~mgorman/Kruijver.pdf
2006: http://eje-online.org/cgi/content/full/155/suppl_1/S107 This study says the hrt changed the sizes of the brain and hypothalmus.
Function explained by othersQuoteThe hypothalamus is a tiny area just above the pituitary, with several nuclei floating in cerebro-spinal fluid. Each nucleus in the hypothalamus engages a specific emotion or function: fear, anger, grief, pleasure, hunger, thirst, water balance, sexual arousal, temperature regulation, etc. The applicable nucleus flashes emotional information out to the nervous system for a fast reaction, and down to the pituitary, where it is relayed to the other endocrine glands.
QuoteDepending on which hypothalamic nucleus sends the signal, you will protect yourself, or you will laugh, or burst into tears, or eat something, or get a fever, or whatever the hypothalamus perceives to have been requested by the amygdalas.
Other Differences In Sex (possibly gender)
QuoteSeveral hypothalamic nuclei are sexually dimorphic, i.e. there are clear differences in both structure and function between males and females.
Some differences are apparent even in gross neuroanatomy: most notable is the sexually dimorphic nucleus within the preoptic area, which is present only in males. However most of the differences are subtle changes in the connectivity and chemical sensitivity of particular sets of neurons.
The importance of these changes can be recognised by functional differences between males and females. For instance, the pattern of secretion of growth hormone is sexually dimorphic, and this is one reason why in many species, adult males are much larger than females.
QuoteOther striking functional dimorphisms are in the behavioral responses to ovarian steroids of the adult. Males and females respond differently to ovarian steroids, partly because the expression of estrogen-sensitive neurons in the hypothalamus is sexually dimorphic, i.e. estrogen receptors are expressed in different sets of neurons.
Estrogen and progesterone act by influencing gene expression in particular neurons. To influence gene expression, estrogen binds to an intracellular receptor, and this complex is translocated to the cell nucleus where it interacts with regions of the DNA known as estrogen regulatory elements (EREs). Increased protein synthesis may follow as soon as 30 min later. Thus, for estrogen to influence the expression of a particular gene in a particular cell, the following must occur:
the cell must be exposed to estrogen
the cell must express estrogen receptors
the gene must be one that is regulated by an ERE.
Male and female brains differ in the distribution of estrogen receptors, and this difference is an irreversible consequence of neonatal steroid exposure. Estrogen receptors (and progesterone receptors) are found mainly in neurons in the anterior and mediobasal hypothalamus, notably:
the preoptic area (where LHRH neurons are located)
the periventricular nucleus (where somatostatin neurons are located)
the ventromedial hypothalamus (which is important for sexual behavior).
QuoteIn men, the right amygdala is more active and shows more connections with other regions of the brain, even when there is no outside stimulus. Conversely, in women, the left amygdala is more connected with other regions of the brain. In addition, the regions of the brain with which the amygdala communicates while a subject is at rest are different in men and women.
No, it's all valid from what I know, the problem made be the postmortem studies of TS' and gays which some are suggesting are not valid, but no one has reproduced the effect on dead animals that resulted in the same formations in non-gay [and non-TS-like] critters. So, right now it stands the evidence errs on the side of biology.
-- Brede
I am not a big fan of Ayn Rand. The whole Objectivist thing seems a little too cultie for me. And Ayn had her subjectivist ways (she smoked for instance)as well she wasen't always consistient as her fans like to think she was.Under Randian theory, emotions are always the consequence of ideas, and incorrect emotions the consequence of wrong ideas, so that therefore, personal dislike of Rand would be gasp..a subjectivisdt heresay! She was just another human before she ever called herself an objectivist and it shows in her actions and her words if you turn off the selective bias...And I sense from what I've read of her and her critiques she wouldn't be too happy if she saw what I meant as being human,(being subvbjective and objective capable of irrational and reasoned thinking ..which is not 100 percent objective. I think people are both objective and subjective.Sometimes at the same time even..
But that's me.
Anyways..
I am one of those androgyne that HAS modified my body to look more male. I have had a hysterectomy and a male chest reconstruction recently.I don't plan on getting the penis.I might wear a fake one for urinary convienence, but I look like a stone butch.I am as masculine as you can get without being a guy or taking T.
Purely being "objective" you would have to insist my inner conflict was just a subjective feeling a muse or flaw caused by emotions if it was not 'proven' empiracally and repeatively found in a gene test or brain scan.Stuff like archetypes Rand could not deal with because she was in denial of her subjective self and so she made sure her followers denied it for her as they purged it out of themselves by purification and manipulation of thier own thought with subjective bias..So for her she wrote subjective things it was tidier to control herself and her fans
that way.For the most part in my observation philosophy does not advance theories, nor settle empirical questions. It settles the big questions of meaning. As in the question of what something is—of what "love" is..That is really a question of what "love" means.
What does Androgyny MEAN to me ? What does being A feline in a human body mean to me? What does it mean to be me anyway ?.. The kicker is only I can answer that meaning and define that meaning because I am the only me. And likewise the world will make it's own meaning to themselves of what I mean to them regardless of what I mean to myself.
I am not just a human androgyne. I am feline inside. I am gradually tattooing myself with stripes until I am covered head to toe. I will get labret whiskers and fang implants someday if I can . I wear a fake fur tail and cat ears..what would Rand say about my tail other than dismiss it as a subjective situation of hedonistic "whim-worship." gone over the top? Jung would scream archetype possession from the roof of his office, and frankly I don't care what "philosophers" think about my inner world or how I experince Me pr define myself because they are not me.What about my transformation serves some indirect, "rational" function could ayn ever be satified without declaring me a heretic?
I define me.And this definition of oneself is something our culture tries to take away from every person inside said culture.The minute a baby is born a blue or pink blanket forever stamps one or the other gender on the person for life unless they are able to get to know themselves ,question the meaning and discover they are not just a male or a female.Then the redefinition of meaning struggles in words and flesh for expression because for the gender bender and animal souled person it MEANS something.It matters..
It might be debated that we are dependant on pre-made forms of language.Construct our own private vocabulary and grammar and nobody will understand us.. Marcuse asserts that the established vocabularies and grammars as in those of the language game Wittgenstien wrote about ,but the concepts set in the language games get redefined by relating the language games to their 'determinate negation' .As in what I am not.
I am not male, not female.
Androgyny is at once a negation of the meaning of gender and an embrace of all gender meanings.
We as people in a culture with a language system seem to have to start our descriptions of being as we see it inside ourselves from already existing language and definitions of the language we already know. When we speak and attempt to discribe things, concepts ect. that are outside the regular language and common meanings and usage of such words and not by manufacturing our own language from scratch, we by default do it by re-ordering existing forms of meaning and language.
Androgyny is an active form I think of LIVING and being in and creating this flexible process of defining the self as something outside the common binary definition of gender .That is taken as a given binary fact by most people as if it was true for everyone.I think Androgyny is about expansion of what it means to be what you are.
And when you step outside common language games and definitions of gender and write your own, you become emotional,poetic and archetypal in attempts to incorporate yourself as part of the collective understanding by expanding what gender means by living the meaning you ultimately are and finding the words and self to express it.
Hence my name Underground Panther in the Sky.
A philosophical challenge for the daring...
http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm
Quote from: Underground Panther on April 10, 2007, 02:07:30 AM
I am not a big fan of Ayn Rand. The whole Objectivist thing seems a little too cultie for me.
That was during the Branden years. Afterward, Rand was just picking up the pieces, especially after her husband's death.
QuoteAnd Ayn had her subjectivist ways (she smoked for instance)as well she wasen't always consistient as her fans like to think she was.
Smoking does not imply subjectivity. She simply liked to smoke until it almost killed her.
QuoteUnder Randian theory, emotions are always the consequence of ideas, and incorrect emotions the consequence of wrong ideas, so that therefore, personal dislike of Rand would be gasp..a subjectivisdt heresay!
It makes sense that emotions not rooted in our thoughts should be disregarded as factual. For example, I use to have long bouts of depression throughout my life until I understood that emotions are not the genesis of human thought, rather that they're accompanied or are consequent of them. Therefore, I disregard any emotion that's pointless or contradictory to my values.
QuoteShe was just another human before she ever called herself an objectivist and it shows in her actions and her words if you turn off the selective bias...And I sense from what I've read of her and her critiques she wouldn't be too happy if she saw what I meant as being human,(being subvbjective and objective capable of irrational and reasoned thinking ..which is not 100 percent objective. I think people are both objective and subjective.Sometimes at the same time even. But that's me.
that doesn't follow. Objectivity in this regards is about what comes from Nature, and what comes as a conflict with it. In this case, Rand [and Aristotle and Lao Tzu] was trying to point this problem out, because the philosophers of old tried to 'prove' that humans were a contradiction to Nature, because it was in their conception that everything a person did was evil in some form or another, and that we should live our lives more akin to animals in the field with no regard to our safety, sanity, and happiness. Rand wanted to reverse that, and she did to some small degree, even many non-Randians still borrow from her [and Aristotle] on this. Look at the "Ethics of Care", which is virtue ethics restated. Or look at how scientists like Sagan or Feynmen never rejected the human mind as reality. Or even look at Object Orientated Programming, which bares a striking resemblance to Objectivist Epistemology in more ways than one. This is the testament of Rand's work, quietly echoing into the future, especially by her opponents.
QuotePurely being "objective" you would have to insist my inner conflict was just a subjective feeling a muse or flaw caused by emotions if it was not 'proven' empiracally and repeatively found in a gene test or brain scan.
Yet you proved it in your actions prior to your actions into making it more visible. Your choice is based on values. Objective is not what is outside the mind, it's what is isolated as a property of an entity. Mental entities are equally as real as physical ones, or material ones, or any other possible entity that can be observed. Therefore, your actions are literally
objective, and their source(s) too.
QuoteStuff like archetypes Rand could not deal with because she was in denial of her subjective self and so she made sure her followers denied it for her as they purged it out of themselves by purification and manipulation of thier own thought with subjective bias.
First of all, no one and I mean no one in serious psychological circles takes archtypes as valid either philosophically or scientifically. Second, archtypes don't prove anything, they're descriptive, therefore are not within the scope of science since science is normative, not merely descriptive.
QuoteSo for her she wrote subjective things it was tidier to control herself and her fans that way.
Name one instance, please.
QuoteFor the most part in my observation philosophy does not advance theories, nor settle empirical questions.
Actually it does. Lets look at the philosophy of morality [aka ethics], which has come to more complete theories of morality than it did a thousand years ago. Moreover, without how could we as humans suppose the origin of our morality? By voodoo magic? By looking at our reflections in the shine of livers? Clearly, philosophy serves a purpose of taking what is known and organizing it in such a way that follows from Nature.
QuoteWhat does Androgyny MEAN to me ? What does being A feline in a human body mean to me? What does it mean to be me anyway ?.. The kicker is only I can answer that meaning and define that meaning because I am the only me. And likewise the world will make it's own meaning to themselves of what I mean to them regardless of what I mean to myself.
Obviously, but that does not make it subjective. You have to reference to
something to make it have some quantification, otherwise it's just a random definition with no chance to be explained what so ever.
QuoteI am not just a human androgyne. I am feline inside. I am gradually tattooing myself with stripes until I am covered head to toe. I will get labret whiskers and fang implants someday if I can . I wear a fake fur tail and cat ears..what would Rand say about my tail other than dismiss it as a subjective situation of hedonistic "whim-worship." gone over the top?
Any psychologist and/or philosopher worth their salt would say you are interpreting your value for the feline form as some sort of inner self, when you are yourself by what you value and do. Becoming more feline-like won't make you less a person, but it does mean you are seeking something, a value, that you may not have a complete grasp of at all. Hell, that's what it means to be human, to keep seeking happiness.
QuoteJung would scream archetype possession from the roof of his office, and frankly I don't care what "philosophers" think about my inner world or how I experince Me pr define myself because they are not me.What about my transformation serves some indirect, "rational" function could ayn ever be satified without declaring me a heretic?
Jung was the biggest quack job, next to his teacher Freud, that has ever attempted to steal the work of real psychologists like Wilhelm Wundt and BF Skinner [Wundt I like, but Skinner not so, but at least Skinner tried his hand at real science and not narratives]. Jung literally is the last person you ought to reference in this case because his work has no means to even be called a consistent philosophy or a valid scientific endeavour.
QuoteI define me.And this definition of oneself is something our culture tries to take away from every person inside said culture.The minute a baby is born a blue or pink blanket forever stamps one or the other gender on the person for life unless they are able to get to know themselves ,question the meaning and discover they are not just a male or a female.Then the redefinition of meaning struggles in words and flesh for expression because for the gender bender and animal souled person it MEANS something.It matters..
You define your values and how you express them, but you don't define your DNA. That's beyond your scope of free will, just as much as it's beyond my scope to will myself to fly without the aide of technology. Being male or female does not deny androgyny, since androgyny does not necessarily have to be a function of your reproductive capacities, rather it's an expression of values you carry with you. That's why my generation and ones after me tend toward androgyny. It's not that our DNA has changed, it's that our source of knowledge has changed. Our philosophy is more open now than before, especially to Nature and reason.
QuoteIt might be debated that we are dependant on pre-made forms of language.Construct our own private vocabulary and grammar and nobody will understand us.. Marcuse asserts that the established vocabularies and grammars as in those of the language game Wittgenstien wrote about ,but the concepts set in the language games get redefined by relating the language games to their 'determinate negation' .As in what I am not. I am not male, not female. Androgyny is at once a negation of the meaning of gender and an embrace of all gender meanings.
You don't get to decide the rules of Nature. You are a subset of it, just as I am. Just accept Nature as it is, use it to its fullest and be happy. :3
QuoteWe as people in a culture with a language system seem to have to start our descriptions of being as we see it inside ourselves from already existing language and definitions of the language we already know.
Languages are about describing what's around us. X is Y because of n1, n2, and n3. X has n1, n2, n3,..., and nI. And so on, it's not an illusion, but rather a reality of our epistemology. And it's something we all do, evne you are doing it right now; collecting data, looking for objects to compose in your mind, and using them to understand what you're seeing to its fullest. Yet none of this is without flaw, because the flaw comes from the nature of our being as tabula rasa at the start of it all, so we only get to understand so much since we weren't at the absolute start of things, but we do know what we know with the certainty of our senses and the certainty of Nature's providence.
QuoteAndrogyny is an active form I think of LIVING and being in and creating this flexible process of defining the self as something outside the common binary definition of gender.
You've pretty much stated what I've said many times in this thread.
QuoteAnd when you step outside common language games and definitions of gender and write your own, you become emotional,poetic and archetypal in attempts to incorporate yourself as part of the collective understanding by expanding what gender means by living the meaning you ultimately are and finding the words and self to express it.
You can't step outside your mind, you only do what you do per your faculties.
QuoteA philosophical challenge for the daring...
http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm
I prefer www.rebirthofreason.com :3
Quote from: Underground Panther on April 10, 2007, 02:07:30 AM
We as people in a culture with a language system seem to have to start our descriptions of being as we see it inside ourselves from already existing language and definitions of the language we already know. When we speak and attempt to discribe things, concepts ect. that are outside the regular language and common meanings and usage of such words and not by manufacturing our own language from scratch, we by default do it by re-ordering existing forms of meaning and language.
I agree that when talking to others one must try to use pre-existing vocabulary, terms, and concepts as much as possible, except when things are radically different, meanings are not exact, or important new knowledge or discoveries require new words, terms, and concepts. Using common words, analogies, and common experiences are great learning tools. And things are less likely to be rejected if one becomes to alien or different to others. Then again, somethings by their nature will be alien, and should be backed by logic, reason, meaning, importance, or at least conviction, belief, acceptance, desire, curiosity, hope, or interest.
Quote from: Underground Panther on April 10, 2007, 02:07:30 AM
Androgyny is an active form I think of LIVING and being in and creating this flexible process of defining the self as something outside the common binary definition of gender. That is taken as a given binary fact by most people as if it was true for everyone.I think Androgyny is about expansion of what it means to be what you are.
After a very genderless childhood, filled with many mixed gendered experiences, during my teens I know I started trying to force a binary system that didnt feel right, into my life. If binary is all that there is, then I might as well be dead. Because I am alien and foreign to exclusive two pole gender identity, my entire life.
Quote from: Underground Panther on April 10, 2007, 02:07:30 AM
And when you step outside common language games and definitions of gender and write your own, you become emotional, poetic, and archetypal in attempts to incorporate yourself as part of the collective understanding by expanding what gender means by living the meaning you ultimately are and finding the words and self to express it.
I think there are 2 main schools of finding new knowledge and discoveries. One is the school of experimentation, testing, and analyzing which starts with observation then leads to new terms, words, processes to explain reality. Then the other is the Eureka, creative artistic genius type of finding new knowledge that the person is more an artist that has sometimes with luck or accidently, has come up with a possible answer (brilliant idea)(also provable with the testing), that may even come accross in poetic, symbolic, or artistic interpreted manner. And new words, terms, and concepts may evolve from those such discoveries also, just in inverse order.
There are stories, movies, pictures, theories, analogies, and music that speaks truths to me, many times ones that I haven't conscously put together in my mind. Thanks for the views both Underground Panther and Attis.
KK
Quote from: Underground Panther on April 10, 2007, 02:07:30 AM
A philosophical challenge for the daring...
http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm
I believe in free will. If it exists, I'm right, and quite possibly I will lead a better, more purposeful life because I believe it. If it doesn't exist, I couldn't have believed otherwise anyway.
(And I'm quite proud to say I thought of that argument independently! -- although others have certainly thought of it before me.)
I leave you all with this..
http://intuition-indepth.blogspot.com/
Check out her 1997 paper linked there, it's worth the time.
That problematic and precious "I" is, for Spinoza a symptom of a passivity, the acceptance of the contingently given, that weakens our capacities, drains and us, impedes our driving force to persist in our own being, to flourish in the world. Paradoxically the only way to flourish in one's being is to cease being only that being.(p. 69)
Our very essence, our conatus, will lead us, if only we will think it all through, to a vision of reality that, since it is the truth, is in our interest to attain, and will affect such a difference in our sense of ourselves that we will have trouble even returning to the pre-philosophical attachment to ourselves.(p.162)
And the village theory of a person being a poly ego under that eye could be a form of consiousness expanding to encompass the other,to become more than an I and relate to all.
Another narrative and no evidence to back it up. I'm not trying to be rude, but these are not scientific in the least. Besides they all suffer from the Homunculus argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus), which has been proven to be wrong by neurology and psychology for many decades, thus there are not hidden little critters in our heads pushing and pulling levers and what not. There is no ghost in the machine as it were.
-- Brede
Since they are talking about it right now, here is the latest post here talking about medical or anatomical differences between gender/sex spectrum. Go ahead and post there too in the news section.
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,13767.0.html