Monday, November 12, 2007

Transacting With the Opposition

I have recently contributed the following item to the Exposing Feminism blog, as a response to an article titled 'Jeff Fecke':

I hear a lot of *questions* buzzing around in this conversation - few if any of which have been resolved to any satisfation. But who knows, maybe I can shed some light.

This so-called ‘men’s movement’ can best be understood if we see it for what it is: A broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population.

I stress the modifier “broad”. When I say broad, I mean broad enough to cover the entire gamut of human nature. That’s broad, all right!

As you know, the gamut of human nature includes everything of which human beings are inherently capable. Some of that is lovely, and some of it ain’t.

This means that the Movement is bound to encompass nearly everything upon the human spectrum of moral capacity.

More and more men everywhere are reacting to the conditions which feminist innovation has generated in the world - often without understanding WHAT they are reacting to! And since the world contains ALL kinds of men, this reaction takes every form imaginable.

And not all of this reaction is morally pure like the driven snow. Why should it be? Not all men are morally pure. (And clearly. the same is true of women, despite what the occult ideology of feminism wants us to believe!)

But then, it is only to be expected that a broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population will display the good, the bad and the ugly in a chaotic tangle!

However, the chaotic tangle of moral capacity within the Movement cannot in any way invalidate the underlying claims or grievances which have set the Movement in motion. Those points need to be seriously addressed on their own merit, and upon their own terms.

And if these points are NOT seriously addressed, but continually misrepresented, scoffed at and brushed aside, then it is quite predictable that matters will continue to slide from ugly to uglier to downright apocalyptic.

I’m afraid that when the shit finally hits the fan, people like Mr. Fecke will be wise to tuck tail and make themselves scarce. That is not a pretty thing to say or to think about, but such premonitory medicine can be salutary for all concerned.

But I am glad to see that SOME of you guys in the other camp are FINALLY waking up to the gravity of the situation. (Although far too many, alas, are merely circling the wagons and acting “hysterically smug.”)

I guess that what I am fumbling so inadequately to say, is that we need to start understanding things in terms of larger historical forces, cycles, patterns. . .

Yes. In many ways, the conversation on this thread sounds like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. . . .

———————————-

Concerning myself: I am one of those who openly brand feminism as a female-supremacist hate movement. I have taken this stand only after giving considerable thought to the subject. I say it because I believe it is TRUE, and I have enumerated my reasons at very considerable length in my blog writings.


The EF post and the entire discussion thread - which I highly recommend to your attention - may be viewed here:

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/2007/
11/10/jeff-fecke/#comment-206

37 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Female supremacy is exactly what it is. These people are hatemongers.

8:15 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Some of them are, and some of them are simply deluded, and some of them insist on calling themselves 'feminists' purely for sentimental reasons. It would be to the benefit of the last-named group if they would learn to call themselves something different.

6:05 PM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

Fidel,

Perhaps I move too quickly, but I have come to a conclusion about feminism, the West, family, women, children, etc. I suspect that this conclusion has also been reached by others in the MRA movement who have withdrawn from the fight.

I have, finally, come to terms with the fact that emotions are lies. Emotions are brain chemicals, more powerful than meth, speed, or heroin. They give you a nice high, and punish you forever after.

Humans are wired to be addicted to emotion, and to the chemicals that cause them. If you have ever watched a friend in the throes of a new and passionate love affair, you have witnessed the power of chemicals on the brain. Do these couples rearrange their lives so as to be able to get more of the chemical fix they get from each other? Do they not behave totally irrationally? Do they not lie and cheat to get their highs? Don’t they in fact behave just like junkies? This is what it means to be an emotional human: to be ruled by chemicals, and to forever seek those fabulous highs. Isn’t this exactly what psychologists say about drugs like cocaine? Fabulous highs the first few times, and then addiction trying to recreate that first fabulous high.

We are wired to form associations with others. Our brains reinforce these associations with chemical rewards. Our brains punish us by depriving us of these chemicals when the associations are broken. This is a vestigial survival tactic from our primitive past when group membership meant survival. Emotions are no longer needed, and must be cast off, or at least recognized for what they are: lies. I am not an addict anymore.

What “matters” to people in life are those things that we either learned to care about or are wired to care about. Those things frequently require us to sacrifice our selves and our own wants in the name of some “higher” good. The trouble is, this “higher” good as it is taught to us isn’t really good for us at all. We learn to do things that are good for society, good for children, good for the country, good for the church, good for others. We allow ourselves to believe it, or we allow ourselves to be forced to do it, because we seek the approval of others. We worry about what others will think, our spouses, parents, communities, children, etc. These bonds we make with others which are supposed to help us survive extract a heavy price: the loss of self. I submit to you that this price is too high.

The punishment of social ostracism if we do something that is “unacceptable” is self-imposed. The group that casts us out is no longer needed for survival. If you truly don’t care what others think, you are the most liberated person on the planet. And you are almost unique. And truly free.

This kind of freedom is incredibly powerful, because you are held back by nothing. This is how a poor kid from Arkansas got to be President. Emotion is crippling and limiting. Once you are free of emotion you can accomplish anything.

This kind of life is not necessarily immoral, or amoral. I can rationally decide, for example, to support myself and my family without requiring an emotional attachment to them.

In today’s climate, too many men find themselves in a situation where they are reduced to laboring to pay others to support children they are no longer allowed by the courts to see, and / or paying money to support women who have used “emotions”, sex, and a rigged court system to seize their assets and paychecks. These poor souls are not men, they are slaves. Other men are falsely accused of domestic violence, child abuse, rape, etc. Their lives, too, are destroyed by a rigged court system. None of these things has yet happened to me. But were they to happen, the only rational response would be to merely leave the country and live elsewhere. A society that does not value men is not worthy of men’s assistance. I absolutely refuse to be a slave to anyone, to any government, or to any chemical addiction however “natural” it may be. Period. I choose free will. I choose manhood. I choose the right to rationally make decisions for myself about what my own best interests are. My life is for me. It is mine.

The way, the ONLY way, for men to beat Left-feminists and Christian man-haters is to withdraw from contact with western women and children. Do not give them our support in any way possible. Withdraw from the system. If that means leaving Western countries for "less-developed" foreign lands, then so be it. We take our skills and our manhood where they are appreciated instead of being used against us. I suspect that some high-name MRA's have done just that.

9:47 AM  
Blogger publius said...

Emotions are brain chemicals, more powerful than meth, speed, or heroin.

Are thoughts not the same species?

6:01 PM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

No they are not. While they may be chemical in nature, rational thoughts do not cause pain, joy, sadness, elation. Thinking "one plus one equals two" doesn't give me any sensation. Thinking "why did she leave me?!" causes pain. See?

9:05 PM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

No, publius, because notnow is scared of emotions, and their inexplicable, seemingly irrational power over him. He is inexplicably elated with the seeming promise of barren, heartless scientific rationalism, and is actually enraptured by the (emotional, but don't tell him that) high gleaned from his pristine thought processes, probably because our culture oh-so-convincingly tells him it's "scientific," and therefore "reasonable." That's the circular logic of peer pressure for you.

And -- oh, wait, now we're back to the point of notnow's post. Shit. ;)

9:33 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

This is a first. Well, almost. The only other apparent "feminists" who have ever posted here on this blog's 13 month existence have been mere birds of passage, leaving the customary greeting card for which birds are noted. But hmmm. . . this here looks to be a mite more. . .

10:07 PM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

Well, no offense, fidelbogen, but the majority of your posts about feminism would only excite to the point of posting those who are already prone to leaving such excrement as their calling card. The others would just go, "Hmm. I could respond to this, but I have better things to do with my time."

I, apparently, do not. Luckily/unluckily for you, depending on your take on it.

10:12 PM  
Blogger publius said...

Neither answered my question. Both disagree with me.

Now would be a good time for Chicagoman to step in.

I don't know Fidelbogen. This is seems new.

11:04 PM  
Blogger publius said...

Don't be talking about notnow like that

11:07 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Thanks all. It is late. I'll be back tomorrow to see what's cooking and maybe stir the pot a bit myself.

11:20 PM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

Don't be talking about notnow like that

Well, this may shock you, publius, but I wasn't even thinking of notnow when I posted that comment.

And it's not very nice to order people around, but after a glance at your blog, I see that "nice" matters little to you. ("I have no compassion"? Wow.)

As for your question, you got two answers. The fact that neither one agrees with what you wanted to hear doesn't mean you weren't answered.

4:57 AM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

literarycritic,

Fear is an emotion, one which I also recognize for what it is: a lie, a chemical punishment that I inflict on myself. Or maybe I don't....

It is better to be off the rollercoaster. The rollercoaster that keeps me tied down, and gives other people undue power over me. literarycritic, you may keep your appendix and your emotionalism. I still have my appendix, and I still experience emotions, and I know that both are useless and can kill me.

5:03 AM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

Fidel,

I am sitting here reading and I just had another epiphany. If men are guilty of anything it is simply this: We gave women way too much credit. We failed to see just how hateful and self-destructive they are. We believed in them and trusted them. We judged them by our own standards, the code of honor that exists among men. There is such a code, it exists in men's literature: "Do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do and no other reason is required." I think you know what I am talking about.

We were so stupid. Women are false advertising incarnate.

7:39 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Litcrit:

"Well, this may shock you, publius, but I wasn't even thinking of notnow when I posted that comment."

Erm..there I would beg to differ, LC. The name of "notnow" does indeed occur in your text, which prima facie tells me that you were indeed "thinking of" him - at least up to a point. Which, I grant you, in no way excludes that you were thinking of other things in addition.

As to Publius' peremptoriness (which, pending further information, I take to be rhetorical), I would remark that you, being now in a Movement venue, ought to expect a bit of such at times. However, I as the gracious lord of this domain will exert moderating force according to my gracious beneficence and most sovereign pleasure, toward those who, in my gracious estimation, push the envelope too far. :}

"As for your question, you got two answers. The fact that neither one agrees with what you wanted to hear doesn't mean you weren't answered."

On this point, LC, I would again differ. It is possible that Publius' question was indeed not answered for the simple reason that his ACTUAL question was not truly addressed by either respondent. The final word on this is, of course, up to Publius.

@Publius: You have raised a very interesting question, one which I am not enough of a scientist to answer with any final authority. I will venture, however, that the core of your thesis is correct: Thoughts and emotions both correspond to something of a chemical nature, and both originate from the same place in terms of base-level brain functioning, but at some point branch off from each other as per their respective "specializations".

@Litcrit: Regarding Publius' blog: I find it to be both thoughtful, and thought-stimulating. Its index of "niceness" is, I suppose, a separate question or rather, domain of questions.

2:31 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@notnow: I am overwhelmed with the sheer volume of your commentary, but let me offer a "short form" response in lieu of something more thorough.

I am, let it be known, a man who very much enjoys the drinking of beer - and yes, even certain forms of male camaraderie and male bonding which often accompany that activity.

And yet it would require a taxing search to locate even one person on planet Earth who would venture to describe me as an alcoholic - unless you paid them to say such a thing.

I can walk away from the stuff any time I like, and that is a FACT.

Hopefully, this says something germane to the subject of your comment.

However, at the moment, the offline world won't take "no" for an answer, so I'm off into the wild blue offline!

More later.

3:38 PM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

Erm..there I would beg to differ, LC. The name of "notnow" does indeed occur in your text, which prima facie tells me that you were indeed "thinking of" him - at least up to a point. Which, I grant you, in no way excludes that you were thinking of other things in addition.

I assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- that publius' comment ("don't be talking about notnow that way") was geared towards my second comment, the one geared towards you. And that comment, if you'll notice, made no mention of notnow, and was not meant to apply to him in any way.

It is possible that Publius' question was indeed not answered for the simple reason that his ACTUAL question was not truly addressed by either respondent. The final word on this is, of course, up to Publius.

Well, fidelbogen, if an answer was intended to be provided, then, on that level, an answer was provided. Whether the question was addressed as he intended it to be is actually separate from whether he got an answer to his question as he originally phrased it.

4:20 PM  
Blogger Davout said...

Responding to Publius' question, thoughts and emotions are fundamentally different.
'emotion' is described as:
1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.
2. A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion.
3. The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: "The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect" (Isaac Bashevis Singer).
'thought' is described as:
1. The act or process of thinking; cogitation.
2. A product of thinking.
3. The faculty of thinking or reasoning.
4. The intellectual activity or production of a particular time or group: ancient Greek thought; deconstructionist thought.
5. Consideration; attention: didn't give much thought to what she said.
6.
a. Intention; purpose: There was no thought of coming home early.
b. Expectation or conception: She had no thought that anything was wrong.

Ergo, a thought is a conscious act. You can ALWAYS be held accountable for your thoughts but NEVER for your emotions (if negative emotions result in irrational thoughts, it is those thoughts you are held accountable for, not the negative emotions). The thought may be rational or irrational. If is is irrational, negative emotions are highly likely, assuming the person in question has a conscience. Even if it is rational, negative emotions may result, depending on whether or not irrational obstacles to the logical end of the rational thought occur. However, one maximizes the chances of positive emotions because even in the event that the rational thought did not come to fruition, one has the consolation of knowing that it was not because the thought itself was flawed. One slightly negative downside of chronic rationality is that one tends not to feel euphoric when the thought is successfully enacted because chances are that if you think rationally habitually, you will get used to being right most of the time.

4:35 PM  
Blogger publius said...

Literarycritic,

Don't be talking about notnow like that

I actually wasn't being serious when I posted that. I was just joking around. Nice to see it get a rise out of you, though.

And it's not very nice to order people around, but after a glance at your blog, I see that "nice" matters little to you.

Really?

...notnow is scared of emotions, and their inexplicable, seemingly irrational power over him. He is inexplicably elated with the seeming promise of barren, heartless scientific rationalism, and is actually enraptured by the (emotional, but don't tell him that) high gleaned from his pristine thought processes...

The pot calling the kettle black.

5:51 AM  
Blogger publius said...

As for your question, you got two answers. The fact that neither one agrees with what you wanted to hear doesn't mean you weren't answered.

Who said I was looking for a specific answer? Oh, you did, literarycritic.

While, yes/no may be fundamental answers, they are like anwering "cat" to the question "what is life?"

11:57 AM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

I actually wasn't being serious when I posted that. I was just joking around. Nice to see it get a rise out of you, though.

Nice of you to finally share that you were joking, ten comments later.

"And it's not very nice to order people around, but after a glance at your blog, I see that 'nice' matters little to you."

Really?


Yes, really. The responses you gave to that guy who died's family (whether they were his family or not) were, to put it mildly, horrifying. To anyone who values normal human compassion, anyway.

"...notnow is scared of emotions, and their inexplicable, seemingly irrational power over him. He is inexplicably elated with the seeming promise of barren, heartless scientific rationalism, and is actually enraptured by the (emotional, but don't tell him that) high gleaned from his pristine thought processes..."

The pot calling the kettle black.


Funny that, while you expect other people to get your sarcasm right away, it slips right by you when it's thrown your way.

And as if my failing to be the nicest person on the planet would make you any nicer, anyway.

While, yes/no may be fundamental answers, they are like anwering "cat" to the question "what is life?"

Maybe I have my reasons for answering "cat." You don't know; you didn't ask. Maybe I think your question is silly, and am giving a flip answer because I can, and maybe that's because I'm a little bit of a jerk when it comes to questions that I've already seen asked and answered a million times, and that I've come to the conclusion are ultimately silly, fruitless debates. You wanna believe in scientific materialism and view the heart (and, coincidentally, almost everything beautiful ever created) as a lie? Fine. Wanna believe in emotionalism and eschew rational thought (and, coincidentally, almost everything useful ever created) entirely? Fine. No skin off my nose.

But both sides of the debate are insane. Without the head, the heart dies. Without the heart, the head dies. I think Margaret Atwood was right on when she said it's all the neck's fault; letting us look down at our bodies from our vaulted bird's-eye view, giving rise to the self-serving illusion that one can live without the other. Total madness.

12:57 PM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

"Without the heart, the head dies."

No, it doesn't.

9:43 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Davout:

"Ergo, a thought is a conscious act. You can ALWAYS be held accountable for your thoughts but NEVER for your emotions (if negative emotions result in irrational thoughts, it is those thoughts you are held accountable for, not the negative emotions)."

A bit of a quibble with this: I cannot quite conceive that a thought is always a conscious act. The way I see it, thoughts originate from 2 possible sources: 1.} As the consequence of an external stimulus, or 2.} As the consequence of a prior thought or progression of thoughts.

It might be a "conscious act" in some way, but the act still must have a source. Saying that a thought is always a conscious act comes to the same thing (if you think it through) as saying that the mind creates itself - since the thought needs to be an act OF or BY something specifically. Something prior to the thought must set the thought in motion - be it another thought, or an external stimulus. And so it goes, back and back into an infinite regress. This quickly gains the flavor of theology.

Ahhh...the thought behind the thought behind the thought...

Still, the stark difference between thoughts and emotions ought to be apparent to anybody endowed with a bit of common sense. . .

Interestingly, it all points back to what I wrote a few comments ago. In purely biological terms (if such an expression be permitted) it seems that thoughts and emotions have their foundation in something chemical. I would deem that a hard generalization to dispute and, being so, perhaps also of some service in moving the investigation forward.

So, it makes sense that thoughts and emotions both originate from the same place in terms of base-level brain functioning, but at some point branch off from each other as per their respective "specializations". This would reflect an evolutionary scenario very nicely, I think: in more primitive life forms, you could plausibly anticipate less differentiation of this kind.

The actual ORIGIN of thought is mysterious. I suspect it all goes back to the split of the primordial monogene into the One and the Other. Or if your prefer, the Cartesian cogito.

But here, for what it's worth, is a somewhat scientific discovery of my own which anybody can easily duplicate. All humans, to our knowledge, undergo a non-stop stream of consciousness, a "roof-brain chatter", a flow of mentations like a babbling brook that never runs dry. So try the following experiment to lower a torch into the deeper mineshaft of of thought, and incidentally put a surprising spin upon Shakespeare's famous line that "We are such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.":

At the end of a tiring day, throw yourself down on your bed upon your back, for a little cat nap. As always, you will be thinking of this-and-that, in a never-ending jumble. But relax, and let it flow. Let it happen. Let sleep gently overtake you, and as you slip into that borderline twilight state where your are ALMOST asleep, but not quite, note the transformation to your thought-stream. It will gain a quasi-auditory character and become distinctly more chaotic, and even vaguely pictorial.

You are entering the dream zone. Your conscious mind is shutting down, and along with it the rational filtering process which is the accompaniment of daily life.

The curtain of slumber is descending over your conscious mind, but at the same time, a deeper curtain is being lifted to unveil the dream-factory section of your brain.

The dream factory: This operates continually throughout your life, whether you know it or not, like a background program on a web server. Even when you are awake, it runs a never-ending drip feed into your conscious mind and engages in a kind of tussle with your rational filtering systems, even while being held generally in check by these systems.

But in sleep, the rational filters shut down and the dream factory takes over completely, and. . . things get interesting.

The dream factory, I submit, is the wellspring of the non-stop daily thought-stream that courses through the head of every human on the planet.

At a deeper level still, one may plausibly suppose the dream factory is linked to the same chemical base-stratum as emotions.

As are ALL mental states.
----------

I could go on and on with this, but I need to call it quits for now . . . :}

10:50 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@litCrit:

"Nice of you to finally share that you were joking, ten comments later.

Tut tut! Dontcha be talkin to Publius that way. ;=]

I'm sure Publius has enough happening in the offline to easy let ten comments slip by before getting back.

Surely you don't "think its all about you", as the feminists would say? ;*}

12:26 AM  
Blogger publius said...

Literarycritic,

Funny that, while you expect other people to get your sarcasm right away, it slips right by you when it's thrown your way.


sar·casm (särkzm) KEY

NOUN:

1.A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2.A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

My remark wasn't intended to wound or make anyone the butt of contempt or ridicule. However, If you were using sarcasm then I must assume you were attempting to wound and make someone the butt of contempt or ridicule.

The responses you gave to that guy who died's family (whether they were his family or not) were, to put it mildly, horrifying. To anyone who values normal human compassion, anyway.

Can you tell me what the intent was of these commenters? If they were family/friends, why would they be wasting their time on a little known blog when this incident was everywhere with an abundance of negative comments from much larger sources. Perhaps their intent was to intimidate. Isn't it also odd that commenters with different names had suspiciously similar styles of writing? Tell me, literary critic, what was their intent?

Maybe I have my reasons for answering "cat." You don't know; you didn't ask. Maybe I think your question is silly, and am giving a flip answer because I can...

If it was so silly, why did you bother commenting at all?

Emotions are brain chemicals, more powerful than meth, speed, or heroin.

Are thoughts not the same species?

This question was not intended to spark debate. It was a question I used in order to make a statement regarding thought being as powerful as emotion, not that emotion and thoughts are the same, but it quickly grew into a new animal after the first two comments that followed. And, it became quite thought provoking with some well thought remarks. I'm not sorry it became this debate. The comments were worth it.

8:41 AM  
Blogger Davout said...

Fidel,

I used the term 'act' incorrectly. It may be better replaced with 'process'.

I am coming from a 'free will' angle: doesn't the notion that thoughts arise from chemical processes detract from the argument that people are endowed with 'free will'? Perhaps it is my ego that wants me to be in total control of my thought processes! However, if thoughts are chemical in nature, then I have no control over my ego!

I see your point about dreams. However, could the brain activity while asleep not be merely the random rearrangement of tangled thoughts rather than a thought process in itself? I say random because I don't think people on average wake up smarter than before they went to sleep.

As an aside, I am curious to know the functioning of the extra brain gene which the Y chromosome possesses and whether it facilitates the separation of thought from emotion as you described above ;-)

9:09 AM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

"Without the heart, the head dies."

No, it doesn't.


On the physiological level, notnow, yes, it does. It's called an analogy.

Look, if you think love, hate, and the appreciation of beauty are no better than an empty lie, I'm not going to try to change your mind. But as far as I'm concerned, it just takes all the point out of living to cut your heart out, metaphorically speaking. It makes you less than human. If you think it makes you more than human, more power to you, but history won't bear you out on that. You might want to take a look at a biography of Nietzsche for an example of how that thought process can turn out. Unless you think, despite the lack of credible evidence, that he died of syphilis.

I'm sure Publius has enough happening in the offline to easy let ten comments slip by before getting back.

Surely you don't "think its all about you", as the feminists would say? ;*}


Nope. Could've just as easily been someone else who misinterpreted his comment.

It would've been easy enough to throw in an emoticon in the original comment to indicate the sarcasm. Without that, how is anybody supposed to know he's joking? Tone is notoriously hard to read on the internet.

The curtain of slumber is descending over your conscious mind, but at the same time, a deeper curtain is being lifted to unveil the dream-factory section of your brain.

Some would call it "the unconscious," no physiological placement implied. ;)

9:09 AM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

My remark wasn't intended to wound or make anyone the butt of contempt or ridicule. However, If you were using sarcasm then I must assume you were attempting to wound and make someone the butt of contempt or ridicule.

So? I never claimed to be a saint. And your responses to the people on your blog still show that "nice" matters little to you, which you're now attempting to dodge for some reason. Or did you not say, "I have no compassion"?

Can you tell me what the intent was of these commenters? If they were family/friends, why would they be wasting their time on a little known blog when this incident was everywhere with an abundance of negative comments from much larger sources. Perhaps their intent was to intimidate. Isn't it also odd that commenters with different names had suspiciously similar styles of writing? Tell me, literary critic, what was their intent?

Who cares? Your responses to them were still horrific. I'd say they were substantially more offensive than my comment about notnow, considering he doesn't even recognize the importance of hurt feelings. But that's a matter of opinion, I guess.

If it was so silly, why did you bother commenting at all?

Because I could. Because fidelbogen let it through. Because I thought it was funny. You don't really care why I commented, so why are you asking? You're just trying to shame me for making the comment in the first place, which isn't going to work.

C'mon, publius: breathe deep, and let it go.

10:15 AM  
Blogger publius said...

Literarycritic,

Yes, a fitting name.

The responses you gave to that guy who died's family...

Now, that's sarcasm.

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Factory said...

Oddly enough, I find myself in agreement with LC on a basic matter. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that emotion is a lie, a drug addiction to be avoided. What the hell would be the point to living sans emotion? Borg anyone? Sure it's probably more efficient, but quite literally no one would care.

I like my summer afternoons of enjoying lazing around, I can't imagine not ever being in love ever again, or ever feeling pride when I look at my daughters, or even feeling bitter anger every once in a while. Without the lows, the highs lose thier value. Does it all balance out? Probably not. That's no excuse for trying to deny emotion.

As to the origination or "process" of thought, I find the whole debate slightly ridiculous and more than a little too dogmatic. When one describes the process of translation of thought into the physical (ie. I think about moving my fingers to type a letter, then my fingers miraculously (?) do just that), one is not describing the "origins" of thought. On a scientific level, such debates make sense, sure. But to use half-understood science to base society on? Scary stuff really.

Which brings me to what I think is also a pretty major problem, namely God Religion vs God Science. Both are dogmatic ideologies vying for social dominance (so far, God Religion is losing by the way). But they really both describe the same things, when it comes to scientific issues. Stretch Genesis out time-wise, allow for a little oversimplification, and on a broadly conceptual basis you have a description of Big Bang to recent past (geologically speaking). And cutting edge quantum physics combined with ultra high resolution medical scanning are exploring brain matter for the source of "consciousness". Turns out it's pretty plausible that what we know as sub-Planck distances (the quantum realm) really describes a low resolution image of what religion would call the "soul". Heady stuff.

What I just don't "get" then, is why the animosity between the two? Why is science not simply regarded as describing things we literally "cannot see"? I mean, metaphorically speaking, is there much difference between "Adam and Eve" and "Lucy"? We can trace our entire species back to a very few ancestors, sounds pretty close to me. And really, we know enough about Biology now to know that you can't found an entire planet's worth of people from a single couple. Think of the incest charges!



The science part in the post, by the way, came from a few articles I've read recently in Scientific American. I recommend you pick up a copy, they make science both easy to understand (relativity applies) and explore some cutting edge stuff.



*my half baked understanding of both science and religion is a product of a simultaneous interst in both, combined with my usual state of mind.

3:27 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Factory:
"Oddly enough, I find myself in agreement with LC on a basic matter. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that emotion is a lie, a drug addiction to be avoided. What the hell would be the point to living sans emotion?"

I think it would not only be pointless; it would be biochemically, metaphysically, and a whole lot of other ways, not possible.

Emotions are to the soul what weather is to the planet. Can you imagine looking out your window one morning and saying, "ahhh...there is no weather today!" ?

Still, notnow is right that emotions can create a (brain) chemical dependency state. So yes, it is good to be off the rollercoaster; it is good to have emotions without being an emotionalIST; it is CRUCIAL to stay well clear of "emotional" people when dicey enterprises or plain old economic well-being are at stake.

It would be nice if there were easy answers to everything. . .

As for religion v. science: If I were forced to make my choice at gunpoint, give me science any day.

Oh... and separation of church and state: let's NEVER forget THAT!

5:42 PM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

Your brain is designed to be addicted. These addictions direct your behavior and rob you of free will. It is impossible to claim free will without recognizing emotion for what it is.

While it may be difficult to not experience emotion, it is really quite easy to recognize it for what it is and not allow it to direct your behavior.

This is a scary truth, perhaps the scariest truth of all. Have any of you ever been to an intervention? I have. Your comments above about love, pride and anger show me just how badly you need these chemical fixes to give your life meaning. Can't you see that?

Emotionalism is taught. People go to movies to experience emotion. Buying a movie ticket is the same thing as buying a drug.

I no longer care about what people feel. I want to know what they think. Feelings will lead you to make bad decisions.

Thoughts and feeling ARE different. While both may be chemicals, the former does not initiate the release of chemical reward / punishment.

Men have allowed women to maneuver us into our deplorable condition because our emotions make us want to believe that one of them might "love" us someday. Our emotions prevent us from accepting the truth. Men are the true "romantics", not women.

This is our weakness, and women exploit it brilliantly. Our belief in them will keep us from ever achieving our goals.

Think about it.

9:50 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"I no longer care about what people feel. I want to know what they think. Feelings will lead you to make bad decisions."

There are many kinds of "feelings", one of which would be, for example, intuition. Ever get a funny "feeling" about a person or a situation, which says to you "don't trust", or "don't go there"? I myself have learned to take such feelings seriously.

Intuition, as I like to say, is compiled observation, and although it can be described as a "feeling" (or more properly, a hunch), it is in fact a very, VERY different critter from so-called "emotion" as you describe it. Intuition might not "feel" like the same thing as thought, but I personally THINK it is a kind of executable "thought file" - one which can process particular situations very efficiently and very rapidly - and even spare you a lot of grief in some cases.

"This is our weakness, and women exploit it brilliantly. Our belief in them will keep us from ever achieving our goals.

I think there is no question that men live far too much in the power of women. (For which women themselves are certainly not to blame!)

12:25 AM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

Factory,

Kind of funny, but I agree with most of your comment. Science and religion are seen as being at odds in our culture.

I'd actually say the reason there's such animosity is because, fundamentally, our culture is rationalist and materialist. Sure, quantum physics and higher-level religious thought have major points of similarity, but on the general cultural level, they're seen as being completely different as explanations for the world we see around us (including the parts of it we don't see). The majority of people either ascribe to a fundamentally empirical (i.e., rational, scientific, evidence-based) view of the world and the matter in it, and a small percentage take a literal "Biblical" view of things: God created the world in seven days, Adam and Eve were literally the first and only humans, and so on. And there really is no meeting ground between the two, because there's no concept of symbolism (metaphor, imagery, essence, whatever you want to call it) on either side. Each side just believes in the literal, concrete interpretation -- i.e., a materialist view.

Materialism and literalism leave no room for debate, no room for any meeting of the minds. If you believe your side is literally (and thus absolutely) true, you can't give any credence whatsoever to any other viewpoint.

It's very limiting, and ultimately destructive. And, IMO, it's a fundamentally false dichotomy, for exactly the reasons you outlined in your post.

9:00 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Ein Traum, ein Traum ist unser Leben
Auf Erden hier.
Wie Schatten auf den Wolken schweben
Und schwinden wir.
Und messen unsre trägen Tritte
Nach Raum und Zeit;
Und sind (und wissen's nicht) in Mitte
Der Ewigkeit.."

6:19 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Hallo fidelbogen, also wenn das hier die Ewigkeit ist, bin ich wohl auf der falschen Wolke gelandet... ;-)
(Transl.: Ok, so if this is eternity, it looks to me like I've ended up on the wrong cloud...)

12:44 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

;-)

1:54 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home