questionreality

First of all, you keep describing your ayahuasca visions and symbolic interpretations as "direct firsthand experiences of the Feminine" but that’s not actually what "direct experience" means. What you experienced was internal imagery and emotional states, which you interpreted through the lenses of Yin/Yang, Jungian archetypes, mythology, Taoism, and your existing ideas about the feminine. That's a personal spiritual experience but it is not direct experience of some external metaphysical feminine principle. You interpreted the symbolic content (that your mind produced) through the frameworks you already believe in. This is no different than members of Santo Daime who claim to see and meet Jesus during their ayahuasca trips. They all interpret it as direct experience and contact with Jesus. In both these cases, the experience is internal, generated by the mind and is shaped by pre-existing beliefs and cultural symbols. The issue is that you are mixing an internal experience with an external metaphysical claim. (Just in case, I am not a materialist, have done my share of psychedelics including 5-meo, etc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And now back to the main point. You keep redefining "femininity" itself in a way that removes it entirely from the real world. You’ve shifted femininity from something observable in human behavior into a cosmic, mystical, archetypal force that only exists in symbolic visions and psychedelic states. That’s your personal metaphysical belief, and you’re free to hold it. But once you define femininity as: - non-empirical -unmeasurable -inaccessible to observation -rooted in altered states and mythology -something "culture gets wrong" by default -something only available through symbolic interpretation Then you’re no longer talking about femininity as it actually exists in human societies. You’re talking about a private spiritual cosmology. And that cosmology has no ability to explain or even acknowledge the very real cultural differences in feminine expression that my original point was about. It’s metaphysical, personal, and symbolic, which is fine, but it can’t be used to dismiss or override real-world patterns of femininity. So when you label cultural, behavioral femininity as "patriarchy costumes", what you’re really doing is rejecting anything that doesn’t fit your mystical model. I was talking about femininity as it shows up in actual women in actual cultures. You’re talking about femininity as an archetypal force that you experienced in your psychedelic journeys. Those two things are completely different, and it just means we’re discussing different subjects entirely - with respect.

You’re doing exactly what pseudo-intellectuals do when they get cornered: 1)You can’t refute the actual point, so you attack "21st century social science" as "neutered". 2)You dismiss rigor and clear definitions as narrow mindedness. 3)You collapse distinctions again because you need "essence = trait = characteristic" for your argument to survive. 4)Then you circle back to the same loaded question I already explained is a bad question. This isn’t good faith argumentation. It’s an attempt to drag me into your frame while refusing to define your own terms. Given that, I will not be engaging with you any further.

You’re trying to collapse two different categories ''traits" and "essence" as if they’re interchangeable, but they aren’t. Not in psychology, not in anthropology, and not in gender studies. A trait is measurable and statistical. An essence is metaphysical and universal. They are not commensurable unless you redefine both concepts to mean the same thing, which is exactly the word game you’re accusing me of. You asked for a list of "woman traits," which is a question that assumes women have some built in universal qualities. That’s why psychology doesn’t frame femininity that way. It’s a pattern of tendencies, not a built in essence. And calling my argument "pseudointellectual" or "feminine" is an example of rhetoric you use to avoid engaging with the distinction I made. If you continue to argue in bad faith and play word games, I will not be engaging with you any further.

The point isn’t that "woman" = a fixed list of traits. Psychology doesn’t treat femininity as an essence, it treats it as a set of traits and behaviors that correlate with women statistically and culturally, not universally or absolutely. Just like a height isn’t a "male essence" but men are taller on average Risk-taking isn’t "male essence" but men score higher statistically Agreeableness isn’t "female essence" but women score higher across cultures None of these mean "all men" or "all women", you understand? Femininity is the set of traits that cultures and psychological studies consistently associate with women more than men. So the question “Give me the list of woman traits” is already framing the topic incorrectly. It assumes femininity must be some metaphysical essence rather than a statistical set of traits historically associated with women

Yup that's a classic, I know what you mean

According to psychology femininity is defined as a set of gender typed traits, behaviors and preferences that tend to be statistically more common in women, but which both sexes can possess. Models such as BSRI, big five personality traits, and evolutionary psychology are used for this. And according to anthropology, it's what culture teaches a woman to be. Socially and culturally defined behaviors, norms, roles, and aesthetics associated with women. Not one empirical discipline defines femininity the way that she did, that's what I am saying.

That's not addressing my point at all though. You’ve shifted completely into your own mythological system where “femininity” is a cosmic force you experienced on psychedelics. That’s fine as a personal new age belief, but it has nothing to do with real world cultural or psychological femininity. Everything you've described such as mother nature battles, patriarchy as a war against hurricanes, ayahuasca revelations, stage green catabolic cycles, etc - is your symbolic world. These are subjective experiences, not objective data. Thus they can not be universal explanation for gender expression. You are basically treating your personal spiritual experiences as if they’re objective truths that override observable cultural patterns. You can’t just redefine femininity as a mystical force, then dismiss real world differences between women in various societies as “patriarchy costumes” because it doesn’t fit your cosmology

That's a good point, except that now a days in Eastern European countries they are no longer having many babies. Birthrates have been declining, but the women there on average are still way more feminine than in western countries. You would be surprised at the difference once you travel to such places and directly experience it for yourself. That of course requires living there for sometime, which would be eye opening to say the least.

With all due respect, it seems like you are using a very personal definition of “feminine” that isn’t grounded in anthropology, psychology, or culture. It looks like your own symbolic framework, or system, which is fine, but it’s not a universal definition of femininity. Also, framing men’s understanding of femininity as primarily sexual is actually a stereotype. Men learn femininity first from their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, teachers, colleagues, etc. These are relationships where sexuality plays zero role. Those relationships shape a man’s concept of femininity far more deeply than attraction does imo. And many women themselves would agree that women in certain cultures (like Eastern Europe) express femininity more visibly. My original point was an empirical one. There are observable patterns of behavior, aesthetics, speech, social norms, etc. But you reframed it entirely into a model of “deep feminine vs springtime feminine,” and then dismissed those concrete cultural differences as “patriarchy shaped fake femininity.”

In countries like Russia, Ukraine and in Eastern Europe in general the society is more patriarchal than in western countries, yet the women there are way more feminine on average than in the western world. (I lived in both just in case). How do you explain this? Something tells me what you said cannot be entirely true, there has to be other reasons, including cultural.

So now you are reverting to whataboutism? Really? Why do you assume that only the right-wingers have a problem with his assassination? It doesn't matter whether you are on the left or the right - if you support assassination of a political candidate you for sure don't support democracy, or at the very least don't understand what it is and how it works. I knew you were biased, but didn't know that you could be this blinded. I can now see why this forum has such a strong echo chamber and groupthink. I really can't believe what I have just read.

It automatically makes me a Trump supporter if I am not okay with his assassination? You are more lost than I thought - holy shit

How do you not understand that political violence is an undemocratic act? How is having one guy with a gun take away the candidate from a ballot that half of Americans support okay? On one hand you bring January 6th up, and on the other hand you are fine with assassination of political opponents. You are no different from the those who thought it was fine to overthrow the government on that day. Not to mention that it would be extremely shortsighted - there is a very good chance there would be assassination attempts coming in the way of the candidate/president that you support. The fact that I even have to say these obvious things, and even people like @Leo Gura don't have an issue with it tells me this subforum is more fucked than I thought.

The fact that you (and many others here) don't see the problem with assassination of political opponents and think that Trump deserves to be killed, proves my point once again that I made about leftists and the leftist echo chamber that blinds many people on this sub-forum. You are no better than right-wingers in that regard, stop lying to yourself.

Dawkins defines "god" in dualistic sense - as he said he doesn't believe in the man who sits on the sky and forgives sins, listens to prayers, etc. He clearly rejects this concept and he is correct to do so. Yet he does say that there is something mysterious in the universe - so he is still open to the possibility of mysterious force, just not "god in conventional sense. Most people miss this, but how you define "god" when discussing this concept is very crucial.

Wow, if this is true, that would be actually playing 4-d chess. Very nice observation! Yea that's huge. No wonder Trump has now refused to do another debate with her.

@zurew I will not be taking your bait and play games with you. You telling me that I offer 0 substance, while you yourself have offered nothing of value in this thread and also in the Lex Friedman thread. In fact, in the Lex Friedman thread you have posted enough that clearly shows you are so stuck in your leftist echo chamber, and the concepts of "balance", "nuance" and "neutrality" are just too hard to understand. Enjoy debating right-wingers, I will not be wasting my time on you.

5. I see what you are saying. From my perspective, it's not an advantage if you turn it into a disadvantage, and if the mods are biased, they certainly are aware of it. 7. Very true. I have explored both approaches in my life and came to conclusion that since we are dealing with humans and most of our problems have something to do with humans, I value the practical, grounded approach more vs the abstracted one. If I was living alone in the cave and away from the civilization, it would be the other way around for certain.

Thanks for proving my point

1. Fair enough 2. Do you remember the 1st debate with Biden? What do you think would have happened if he wouldn't have been granted the extra time? We can make a a bet that he would do the same as in the 1st debate - he would go back to previous topic and would just skip some questions. The difference is that you are viewing the concept of "fair" from an abstract standpoint and I am viewing it from a practical. From a practical standpoint it does not give Trump an unfair advantage - hence the difference in our perspectives. 3. We must be seeing from completely different lenses then. I did not see how she caved to Trump, nor how she acted more harshly to Harris. 4. She may have been or she may not - we don't know this. But the fact remains is that she requested it only once and did not mind Trump getting the extra time. Given that her camp wanted the mics to be on in the 1st place, tells me that the probability is higher that she clearly wanted him to go on rants with the extra time and did not view it as unfair advantage. 5. Again, you are viewing it as "unfair" from an abstract standpoint, without taking into consideration who is actually debating. From a practical standpoint, we can argue that the extra time granted to Trump actually gave Harris an advantage. 6. I understand why you get the sense of this orientation due to my rigid style of writing a lot of the time. I would describe myself as rigid-fluid type - while writing I can be very rigid, while leaving in the background the fluidity and vice-versa. I also sometimes go back and add fluidity or rigidity later. I find that both have value - depending on who you are exchanging ideas with. 7. Interesting that you view it as being "mentally confined", while I view it as just being grounded in the "raw reality". Quite the opposite for me, I don't like to be stuck in the world of abstraction too much, hence our differences. 8.Fair enough

You are right, and this applies not just to US but to most of the countries. I was surprised to find that the majority of people on this forum are also stuck in echo chambers (predominantly left). If that's what you get on an "actualized" forum, in other places you would probably find 10x worse. Most people create an identity out of their political views, hence it's easier just to consume the information that confirms their own biases, rather than question them. Until the left and the right start calling out BS from their own sides, we will not get anywhere. For someone who doesn't identity with the left nor the right, it became very amusing to me to observe the zoo of the political landscape.

That is your own projection and assumption in your world of abstraction. That is one way of seeing it - sometimes yes he took it aggressively because he was boiled up, and sometimes he said "excuse me" while doing so. Getting him boiled up and unhinged was part of the game plan (mentioning crowd sizes, rallies being boring, etc), which worked quite well and was the clear cause of him being this aggressive. Why do you call it harsh? She requested it only once and they decided to move on to the next topic. There is a good chance that if she requested the time at a different time, she would also be granted it. From my perspective if Harris wanted extra time and would have thought that Trump was gaining unfair advantage, she would have brought it up, I have no doubt about it. Harris looked in total control - she clearly didn't mind seeing him hang himself with that extra time. I may sound locked in, but it doesn't mean that am not open to other possibilities. I am always open to hearing new perspectives. I find it ironic that you say this, given that a lot of the time you seem to be lost in the world of abstraction, and unable to see that you are projecting a lot of the time. Your own projections from your abstract thinking sometimes they get in the way of seeing reality for what it is. Also for someone who claims or positions themselves to be "stage yellow", you seem to have a lot of bias when it comes to politics - which is also quite ironic.

Many of you may have forgotten, but In the 1st debate against Biden, Trump did not answer many questions as he was using the time to go back to the previous topics. Maybe that's why ABC gave him the extra time, to avoid the issue that happened during the 1st debate? If they wouldn't, he would clearly do the same here and it's very likely that they wanted to avoid that. Trump is quite impulsive and there is no way he would move on from a topic if he didn't finish saying what he wanted to say.

Read what I wrote above - not going to say the same thing over and over again to every person. I have clearly explained why ABC was biased against Trump, it's not hard to understand. I am going to quote LEO here: The problem is that you expect everyone to be a leftist. Because you are so caught up in your ideological bubble, you are not able to see your own bias, not to mention the bias of the ideology that you adhere to. If having a balanced take, and seeing through the bias of both sides is playing a "centrist game", then so be it. It sure is much better than playing whatever game that you are playing - projecting, virtue signaling and continuing to be blinded by your ideological blindfolds. Ironically you believe that you are different from the MAGA supporters, but you are not. You are just on the other side of the coin. How about that for a meta-take? I have never said that they are equal. But a lie is a lie. You either call the lies out or you don't. In a debate, it's the opponent's job to fact check, and if Kamala was better prepared - she could have actually called him out herself on it and would have scored a lot more with that. I certainly would expect for a presidential candidate to be prepared and to be able to fact check without the help of the moderators. Otherwise, these things should be discussed and agreed upon prior to debate "what constitutes an egregious ridiculous lies, etc" It doesn't take playing 4-d chess to see that Trump was hanging himself with that extra time. It was damn obvious to anyone with a brain. Trump's camp wanted the mics muted before the debate for that reason and Kamala's camp wanted them on - as they knew that extra time on the mic would work against him. They were not "bad" moderators, but they were a bit biased against Trump was my only claim. Kamala would have won the debate either way, but from the perspective of some people who are undecided or right leaning, the moderators looked like they were against him. I disagree that there were multiple forms of bias, how do you not understand this? Harris requested only ONCE for extra time, that's it. Trump requested it very frequently and ALSO got denied at least once. This does not mean that they were biased against Harris, just because of the one time that they denied her. The extra time given to Trump did not favor him - he looked very unhinged and that is also the reason why his camp wanted their mics to be muted.

She only asked ONCE and was denied. Trump asked many times, and was ALSO denied at least one time. Just because she was denied the only time that she asked does not mean that they were biased against her, LOL.