Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

But how did the Rust Belt voters show their frustration? Voting. I'm not a big fan of democracy either, but marching to the voting both is a more direct path to change than chanting and holding signs, or listening to speakers. It doesn't have to be leftists, but that particular format ("marches") seems to be a leftist thing for whatever reason.

Just let people march if that's what they want to do, why do you have to mock people for it?

Women do not have it worse than men in the US, currently, as a group. They live longer, are more educated, didn't experience the same loss of jobs as men during the "Recession", have preferential treatment under the law when in disputes with men, and even make more money (if under 30). They also are not under any sort of threat of reversal of this situation.

Compare this with Rust Belters as a group: Dying earlier, less educated, having their industries hollowed out over 2-3 decades by trade deals and regulations, and increasingly poor. Yes, I sympathize with people with problems. There's nothing left-right about it.

Women do have it worse than men, in several respects.

It's a political position either way, for me and for you. Women have made measurable strides over the past hundred years or so, but that doesn't mean they have it better off, and it doesn't mean that cultural attitudes toward women are exactly enlightened. An example would be the way that women are talked about and treated within predominantly male careers, or the way that business culture perceives women and constructs expectations regarding their behavior at work. In my opinion, this is just as important as everything you mentioned.

But I'm sure that comment will incite a backlash from you and maybe others, and I don't at all feel like having that discussion.

I would be equally disdainful of a march if Hillary was in office, so if there's political bias, it's not specifically turned at marchers because of their politics. They offer a feeling of belonging, but functionally it merely dissipates energy. I'm not sure there's a way to categorically dismiss marches without appearing condescending but if so, I apologize.

You could start by just not getting so frustrated by the fact that people are marching. I'm not sure what the problem is--especially since, as I'm saying, your characterization of people there doesn't seem accurate to me.

It's not accusatory. I'm saying transcendence is something that appears to be commonly desired, if not necessary, for human happiness. This is why Western institutions appear to be beginning to flounder, they lack anything remotely transcendent.

I don't think that's convincing, although I do of course agree that plenty of people want to believe in some kind of more profound meaning. But I think you can also argue that plenty of people do exhibit confidence in the transcendence of their beliefs, or politics, or behavior, what have you. I just think some people's transcendent motivations are in conflict with others'.

In other words, maybe we have too many people who believe too much in the transcendence of their values.

Which elements work?

Distribution of wealth works, depending on the degree and mechanism.

I'm all for welfare programs and various institutions responsible for public funding. I think they need to be combined with market practices though.

Speaking of political bias, would you similarly say that elements of Nazism work? How about Fascism?

How can I say "yes" and not be taken for a sympathizer?

But yes, all political programs succeed or fail based on a balance of principles. Nationalism works, as Dak has argued before--but you can have nationalism without racially motivated internment and genocide.

 

[rms]

Speaking of political bias, would you similarly say that elements of Nazism work? How about Fascism?

of course. Nazism and Fascism worked because of extreme nationalism, it's just that all human created systems have flaws, and those systems promoted more flaws than good IMO. Communism attempts to remove systemic economic inequality, it's just that everyone is poor except those in power, and those in power control everything

An example would be the way that women are talked about and treated within predominantly male careers, or the way that business culture perceives women and constructs expectations regarding their behavior at work.

I always wanted to act like this kind of person on Tinder or in real life and see what the hetero female's response to this is. Do they get excited, wet, eroused when they hear men speak like this? It really makes me curious

 

[CiG]

Fair enough.

 

[Dak]

Just let people march if that's what they want to do, why do you have to mock people for it?

You're acting like it's just some like, preference thing like a type of beer or something, or a hobby like geocaching or something. However, at best it's an attempt to inspire people to take action, at worst it's an attempt at intimidation of opposing politicians and/or electorate (I think it's both an attempt to inspire and to intimidate).

Women do have it worse than men, in several respects.

It's a political position either way, for me and for you. Women have made measurable strides over the past hundred years or so, but that doesn't mean they have it better off, and it doesn't mean that cultural attitudes toward women are exactly enlightened. An example would be the way that women are talked about and treated within predominantly male careers, or the way that business culture perceives women and constructs expectations regarding their behavior at work. In my opinion, this is just as important as everything you mentioned.

But I'm sure that comment will incite a backlash from you and maybe others, and I don't at all feel like having that discussion.

Individual interpersonal or single corporate issues may be important to the individual, but they are not objective econolegal issues or measures. I do think it's more important that the current socioedueconolegal structure is quite rigged against males across the lifespan as opposed to 16-30 year old women having to put up with male attention from men they consider outside their optimal mating target range.

You could start by just not getting so frustrated by the fact that people are marching. I'm not sure what the problem is--especially since, as I'm saying, your characterization of people there doesn't seem accurate to me.

I'm not "frustrated". People can march all they want. I just find it problematic from all perspectives. Any frustration I might feel is towards root ills - marching is a symptom.

I don't think that's convincing, although I do of course agree that plenty of people want to believe in some kind of more profound meaning. But I think you can also argue that plenty of people do exhibit confidence in the transcendence of their beliefs, or politics, or behavior, what have you. I just think some people's transcendent motivations are in conflict with others'.

In other words, maybe we have too many people who believe too much in the transcendence of their values.

It appears you're arguing against my is with an ought. Obviously different offerings of transcendence conflict, that's inherent in transcendence. This is why the most cohesive and effective social organizations have shared goals - the more transcendent the better.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're acting like it's just some like, preference thing like a type of beer or something, or a hobby like geocaching or something. However, at best it's an attempt to inspire people to take action, at worst it's an attempt at intimidation of opposing politicians and/or electorate (I think it's both an attempt to inspire and to intimidate).

I'm not "frustrated". People can march all they want. I just find it problematic from all perspectives. Any frustration I might feel is towards root ills - marching is a symptom.

That's the problem. You assume there are "root ills." Quite an assumption to make.

Individual interpersonal or single corporate issues may be important to the individual, but they are not objective econolegal issues or measures. I do think it's more important that the current socioedueconolegal structure is quite rigged against males across the lifespan as opposed to 16-30 year old women having to put up with male attention from men they consider outside their optimal mating target range.

Your evidence that it's "rigged against men" is based on a select number of cases in which women have levied accusations against men. The truth you don't want to acknowledge is that women suffer humiliation and discomfort from men at a much higher rate than women pursue legal action against men. They fear doing so in many cases because they don't want to lose their jobs. Saying that the system is unequivocally rigged against men is reductive and naive.

And I hope your answer isn't that that's just how men are and that women need to get over it.

In the vast majority of cases, there isn't any consummated sexual interaction between men and women. It starts with unwanted advances and ends before any kind of sexual intercourse takes place. This doesn't mean that women haven't suffered at the hands of men.

It appears you're arguing against my is with an ought. Obviously different offerings of transcendence conflict, that's inherent in transcendence. This is why the most cohesive and effective social organizations have shared goals - the more transcendent the better.

I don't think you're keeping your argument straight.

Before you suggested that there's nothing "remotely transcendent" for people to latch on to; now you're saying that there are, in fact, numerous transcendent beliefs.

 

[Dak]

That's the problem. You assume there are "root ills." Quite an assumption to make.

So Trump isn't a symptom? Merely the ill itself?

Your evidence that it's "rigged against men" is based on a select number of cases in which women have levied accusations against men. The truth you don't want to acknowledge is that women suffer humiliation and discomfort from men at a much higher rate than women pursue legal action against men. They fear doing so in many cases because they don't want to lose their jobs. Saying that the system is unequivocally rigged against men is reductive and naive.

And I hope your answer isn't that that's just how men are and that women need to get over it.

Maybe it's just how women are and they need to get over it. Or maybe it's more complicated than that. I can quote case law. I can quote aggregate college attendance and GPA statistics. I can provide below 30 earnings statistics. I can provide sex based differences in job loss/gain from the recession. You're going to quote some individual cases of individual women felling rightly or wrongly that they were mistreated by individual men. You can't aggregate them because they are, by definition, heterogeneous (feel = subjective). That there may be a sizeable number that have this feeling may mean something, but it doesn't automatically indicate a truth of the feeling.

In the vast majority of cases, there isn't any consummated sexual interaction between men and women. It starts with unwanted advances and ends before any kind of sexual intercourse takes place. This doesn't mean that women haven't suffered at the hands of men.

I don't think you're keeping your argument straight.

Before you suggested that there's nothing "remotely transcendent" for people to latch on to; now you're saying that there are, in fact, numerous transcendent beliefs.

The west isn't currently isn't offering any transcendence. Marxism, or Christianity, or some form of nationalism, etc. are old and aging, and modern versions are often varying degrees of debased (particularly Christianity). Older ideas (some like to attach the label "zombie ideas") are reappearing because the "new idea" isn't transcendent. The new idea (not new as in the new millennium - new as in since the 60sish) is an ongoing atomistic, mostly reductionist materialism. While this "idea" may yield - as it is held - many material improvements, it is failing our holistic, social, organic nature (even if this failing is due to our flaws, not materially interpreted flaws in the ideas).

 

[Einherjar86]

So Trump isn't a symptom? Merely the ill itself?

I don't understand this comment.

Maybe it's just how women are and they need to get over it. Or maybe it's more complicated than that. I can quote case law. I can quote aggregate college attendance and GPA statistics. I can provide below 30 earnings statistics. I can provide sex based differences in job loss/gain from the recession. You're going to quote some individual cases of individual women felling rightly or wrongly that they were mistreated by individual men. You can't aggregate them because they are, by definition, heterogeneous (feel = subjective). That there may be a sizeable number that have this feeling may mean something, but it doesn't automatically indicate a truth of the feeling.

It doesn't have to indicate a "truth of the feeling." As you said, it means something. If most people in the building smell smoke, there's a chance that one or two of them is suffering hallucinations; but it's more likely that it's because there's a fire.

The west isn't currently isn't offering any transcendence.

I cannot keep your thinking on this straight. You seem to be bouncing around like a pinball.

 

[rms]

Just find it so preposterous to place the "male gaze" in the same league at how the system views men as expendable. Just asinine

 

[Dak]

I don't understand this comment.

There are causes and symptoms. You can view Trump as one or the other (obviously symptoms can perpetuate ills but there can be roots).I see root ills that have led to both the rise of Trump as well as the rise of marches that apparently you and others have participated in (all marches, and not only marches).

It doesn't have to indicate a "truth of the feeling." As you said, it means something. If most people in the building smell smoke, there's a chance that one or two of them is suffering hallucinations; but it's more likely that it's because there's a fire.

Smoke has objectively measurable causes. Fire is an objective phenomenon. Feelings are not objectively measurable nor are they objectively caused.

I cannot keep your thinking on this straight. You seem to be bouncing around like a pinball.

I think I'm being consistent on this. There are transcendent ideas that originated in the West, but they are "old". Nothing new from the west is transcendent. Neither are non-western ideas like Islam, but they haven't self-neutered with atomistic materialism.

 

[Einherjar86]

There are causes and symptoms. You can view Trump as one or the other (obviously symptoms can perpetuate ills but there can be roots).I see root ills that have led to both the rise of Trump as well as the rise of marches that apparently you and others have participated in (all marches, and not only marches).

Yes, but you see electing Trump as a qualifiably different kind of symptom than marching, the latter which you seem to treat with disdain. Not sure how many different ways I can tell you this.

Smoke has objectively measurable causes. Fire is an objective phenomenon. Feelings are not objectively measurable nor are they objectively caused.

It was a metaphor. But then you don't study language, so I wouldn't expect you to know that... (that's a jab at your earlier comment on science; I know you know what a metaphor is).

I won't descend into a spitting match over objectivity with you, since you seem determined to get me to renege on certain things I've said. In short, there is no objectively measurable quality of harassment; but if enough women complain about being uncomfortable or feeling pressured because of a man's comments, then it's a safe bet that that man should alter his behavior.

This isn't some grand conspiracy by all women to disarm men of their social penises.

In other words, even if there is no Paris meter against which to measure offensive behavior or feelings of discomfort, there are still effective means of determining correlation, which in many cases does exhibit a causal relationship. There are, and will always be, cases in which these relations are misread or misreported; but you can't just focus on these. You have to focus on the sweeping majority of cases and environments in which women feel less like agents and more like objects.

I think I'm being consistent on this. There are transcendent ideas that originated in the West, but they are "old". Nothing new from the west is transcendent. Neither are non-western ideas like Islam, but they haven't self-neutered with atomistic materialism.

This whole conversation demands multiple responses, because your general principles are that a) modern culture lacks transcendent qualities, b) people need transcendence or malaise sets in, and c) "old" transcendental ideas aren't amenable to material culture.

First, I think plenty of people find transcendence in modern culture. I think people find transcendence in science, in technology, no matter how much materialism continues to creep.

Second, I don't think we should find transcendence in these things, and I don't think we need to; so if modern material culture resists transcendentalism, then so be it. People need to learn that transcendental purpose might not exist. This doesn't mean that we can't find contextual purpose and meaning within the contingencies of modernity. It's a difficulty leap to make, but it's not impossible. Most people just don't want to put in the effort.

Finally, transcendentalism will persist despite the encroachment of technology and science. If gods don't exist, then there's no way to disprove their existence--so they'll continue to be a happy illusion.


I also feel compelled to share this, since it relates to the issue of transcendentalism in Marxism. This is a quote from Georg Lukacs, who is one of the beasts of orthodox Marxism in the twentieth century:

Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx's individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious "orthodox" Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx's theses in toto--without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's investigations. It is not the "belief" in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a "sacred" book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders.

If that's a seemingly contradictory passage, it's for good reason. The only transcendence, if we can call it that, in orthodox Marxism isn't the belief in the communist utopia; it is the practice and development of a method, it's the process behind materialist critique. It entails a willingness to reform in light of new scientific discoveries. This is in contrast to what those like Lukacs refer to as "vulgar Marxism."

 

[Einherjar86]

Say the human brain possessed two cognitive systems A and X, the one dedicated to prediction absent access to sources, the other dedicated to prediction via access to sources. And say the brain had various devious ways of combining these systems to solve even more problems. Now imagine the conscious subsystem mediating these systems is entirely insensitive to this structure, so that toggling between them leaves no trace in experience.

Now consider the manifest absurdity:

It is true that there is no such thing as truth.

If truth talk belonged to system A, and such thing talk belonged to system X, then it really could be true that there’s no such thing as truth. But given conscious insensitivity to this, we would have no way of discerning the distinct cognitive ecologies involved, and so presume One Big Happy Cognition by default. If there is no such thing as truth, we would cry, then no statement could be true.

How does one argue against that? short knowledge of the heuristic, fractionate structure of human cognition. Small wonder we’ve been so baffled by our attempts to make sense of ourselves! Our intuitions walk us into the same traps over and over.

Huh.

 

[Dak]

Yes, but you see electing Trump as a qualifiably different kind of symptom than marching, the latter which you seem to treat with disdain. Not sure how many different ways I can tell you this.

Because the faction electing Trump did so because they were tired of following the rules and being screwed, and so they responded by following the rules and have probably still been mostly screwed. The other faction only cares about the rules insofar as they provide the desired outcome. When the outcome isn't correct, it is the rules which are the problem.

It was a metaphor. But then you don't study language, so I wouldn't expect you to know that... (that's a jab at your earlier comment on science; I know you know what a metaphor is).

I won't descend into a spitting match over objectivity with you, since you seem determined to get me to renege on certain things I've said. In short, there is no objectively measurable quality of harassment; but if enough women complain about being uncomfortable or feeling pressured because of a man's comments, then it's a safe bet that that man should alter his behavior.

This isn't some grand conspiracy by all women to disarm men of their social penises.

In other words, even if there is no Paris meter against which to measure offensive behavior or feelings of discomfort, there are still effective means of determining correlation, which in many cases does exhibit a causal relationship. There are, and will always be, cases in which these relations are misread or misreported; but you can't just focus on these. You have to focus on the sweeping majority of cases and environments in which women feel less like agents and more like objects.

The sweeping majority of cases eh?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...ont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...women-dont-want-to-call-themselves-feminists/


Of course 85% believe in equality, but obviously "feminism" and "equality" have become culturally disconnected. I don't believe this would be the case if in the "sweeping majority of cases" women were being ground under the patriarchical boot.

This whole conversation demands multiple responses, because your general principles are that a) modern culture lacks transcendent qualities, b) people need transcendence or malaise sets in, and c) "old" transcendental ideas aren't amenable to material culture.

First, I think plenty of people find transcendence in modern culture. I think people find transcendence in science, in technology, no matter how much materialism continues to creep.

Second, I don't think we should find transcendence in these things, and I don't think we need to; so if modern material culture resists transcendentalism, then so be it. People need to learn that transcendental purpose might not exist. This doesn't mean that we can't find contextual purpose and meaning within the contingencies of modernity. It's a difficulty leap to make, but it's not impossible. Most people just don't want to put in the effort.

Finally, transcendentalism will persist despite the encroachment of technology and science. If gods don't exist, then there's no way to disprove their existence--so they'll continue to be a happy illusion.

(a) I think people find faux transcendence in modern culture, which is why they hop from one faux option to another. (b) You're arguing ought vs is, and concluding by basically admitting as much. I don't think it has anything to do with effort. Sounds like a "poor people just need to work harder!" approach. (c) Yes.

I also feel compelled to share this, since it relates to the issue of transcendentalism in Marxism. This is a quote from Georg Lukacs, who is one of the beasts of orthodox Marxism in the twentieth century:

If that's a seemingly contradictory passage, it's for good reason. The only transcendence, if we can call it that, in orthodox Marxism isn't the belief in the communist utopia; it is the practice and development of a method, it's the process behind materialist critique. It entails a willingness to reform in light of new scientific discoveries. This is in contrast to what those like Lukacs refer to as "vulgar Marxism."

Nothing is perfect, and so even the best available option is open to critique. That says nothing about the value in a particular critique, and definitely nothing about the connected alternative.

 

[Einherjar86]

Because the faction electing Trump did so because they were tired of following the rules and being screwed, and so they responded by following the rules and have probably still been mostly screwed. The other faction only cares about the rules insofar as they provide the desired outcome. When the outcome isn't correct, it is the rules which are the problem.

I'm not sure if you know this, but most of the people who voted for Trump weren't actually blue-collar, working-class, Rust Belt voters. They more than likely pushed him into electoral victory, but the majority of people who voted for Trump were upper-middle class and wealthy voters.

These people haven't been screwed over.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138...ory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class

The sweeping majority of cases eh?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...ont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...women-dont-want-to-call-themselves-feminists/

Of course 85% believe in equality, but obviously "feminism" and "equality" have become culturally disconnected. I don't believe this would be the case if in the "sweeping majority of cases" women were being ground under the patriarchical boot.

Well, you just rejoined your own rejoinder. Women don't need to consider themselves feminists in order for the kind of corporate culture I'm talking about to exist.

(a) I think people find faux transcendence in modern culture, which is why they hop from one faux option to another. (b) You're arguing ought vs is, and concluding by basically admitting as much. I don't think it has anything to do with effort. Sounds like a "poor people just need to work harder!" approach. (c) Yes.

a) It always was "faux transcendence." This is why I find this discussing strange.

b) I know. It isn't really an argument, I'm just saying that people "ought" to realize that we can find meaning without believing in transcendence.

c) Okay.

Nothing is perfect, and so even the best available option is open to critique. That says nothing about the value in a particular critique, and definitely nothing about the connected alternative.

Alright, thanks. Not really sure how to respond, this is kind of a vague comment. But whatever, it doesn't really matter.


Also, reposting this since it got lost at the bottom of the previous page:

Say the human brain possessed two cognitive systems A and X, the one dedicated to prediction absent access to sources, the other dedicated to prediction via access to sources. And say the brain had various devious ways of combining these systems to solve even more problems. Now imagine the conscious subsystem mediating these systems is entirely insensitive to this structure, so that toggling between them leaves no trace in experience.

Now consider the manifest absurdity:

It is true that there is no such thing as truth.

If truth talk belonged to system A, and such thing talk belonged to system X, then it really could be true that there’s no such thing as truth. But given conscious insensitivity to this, we would have no way of discerning the distinct cognitive ecologies involved, and so presume One Big Happy Cognition by default. If there is no such thing as truth, we would cry, then no statement could be true.

How does one argue against that? short knowledge of the heuristic, fractionate structure of human cognition. Small wonder we’ve been so baffled by our attempts to make sense of ourselves! Our intuitions walk us into the same traps over and over.

This is from Scott Bakker's blog. I find a lot of what Bakker says compelling, but it's at the level of something like meta-meta-cognition. Really abstract.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure if you know this, but most of the people who voted for Trump weren't actually blue-collar, working-class, Rust Belt voters. They more than likely pushed him into electoral victory, but the majority of people who voted for Trump were upper-middle class and wealthy voters.

These people haven't been screwed over.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138...ory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class

Well, there's two things to look at here. The people who have been voting Republican consistently for years have mostly been screwed over in terms of their federal politicians not following through on promises (RINOs), plus Hillary was verifiably terrible (of course, with the Syrian blowing up now, it looks like all they are getting from Trump is going to be Gorsuch - which some might consider worth it). Secondly, Rust Belt voters were indeed "swing state" voters in this case.

The argument that college educated whites "failed" in voting for Trump begs the question (I know that wasn't your argument, but it's mentioned or implied in that link and associated links).

Well, you just rejoined your own rejoinder. Women don't need to consider themselves feminists in order for the kind of corporate culture I'm talking about to exist.

Well that's a perfectly low bar. I'm sure there's corporate cultures that take a mean view of women. Uber, for instance. This doesn't indicate systemic anything. In fact, the outing of this is causing problems for Uber. If we had a systemic issue, there'd be no fallout.

a) It always was "faux transcendence." This is why I find this discussing strange.

What was always faux? All transcendence? When I mean faux I mean faux in the sense that these various things are either achievable or inachievable. "Real" transcendence is neither.

This is from Scott Bakker's blog. I find a lot of what Bakker says compelling, but it's at the level of something like meta-meta-cognition. Really abstract.

What if the traps aren't in cognition but simply in the "universe" (this is why mathematics/physics works)? Or what if there isn't a trap, we just lack the necessary sensory apparatus.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, there's two things to look at here. The people who have been voting Republican consistently for years have mostly been screwed over in terms of their federal politicians not following through on promises (RINOs), plus Hillary was verifiably terrible (of course, with the Syrian blowing up now, it looks like all they are getting from Trump is going to be Gorsuch - which some might consider worth it). Secondly, Rust Belt voters were indeed "swing state" voters in this case.

The argument that college educated whites "failed" in voting for Trump begs the question (I know that wasn't your argument, but it's mentioned or implied in that link and associated links).

The link was mostly for stats.

Rust Belt voters were swing state voters, just not the majority of Trump's base, which is how a lot of media here portrayed it (right- and left-wing). If republican voters did feel as though they've been given the shaft, I'm sure that Trump appealed to them. But none of that really indicates that the left is a "rule-changing" faction, while the right is a "rule-following" faction. Both sides want legislation, which is what changes the rules, so to speak--but it's also the legal means of doing so, hence following the rules. I don't think you can make that distinction one way or another.

Well that's a perfectly low bar. I'm sure there's corporate cultures that take a mean view of women. Uber, for instance. This doesn't indicate systemic anything. In fact, the outing of this is causing problems for Uber. If we had a systemic issue, there'd be no fallout.

It's not a low bar. People can be unconscious (or partially unconscious) of the culture they live in. And it is systemic if it reproduces a particular kind of view, image, or behavior; and corporate culture certainly does this. There are initiation rituals, gender expectations, rules of discourse, etc. that the culture itself reproduces. That's systemic.

Look, all I want to say is that women do not objectively ( ) have it better off than men do in America. You tend to downplay the significance of culture and its forms of representation, and how these forms reproduce themselves (especially today, when everything is "viral"). For me, these issues are extremely significant.

What was always faux? All transcendence? When I mean faux I mean faux in the sense that these various things are either achievable or inachievable. "Real" transcendence is neither.

Haha, well it can't be "neither." If something's not achievable, then it's unachievable. Pretty much how that works.

And yes, I think it was always faux. Even if people were able to achieve certain goals, transcendence isn't real; so the reward is always displaced. Maybe some people were able to convince themselves that it would come eventually--but this still happens today, even among the secular crowd.

What if the traps aren't in cognition but simply in the "universe" (this is why mathematics/physics works)? Or what if there isn't a trap, we just lack the necessary sensory apparatus.

There's more discussion on this in the comments: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/the-point-being/

I don't have time to respond at length now.

 

[Dak]

The link was mostly for stats.

Rust Belt voters were swing state voters, just not the majority of Trump's base, which is how a lot of media here portrayed it (right- and left-wing). If republican voters did feel as though they've been given the shaft, I'm sure that Trump appealed to them. But none of that really indicates that the left is a "rule-changing" faction, while the right is a "rule-following" faction. Both sides want legislation, which is what changes the rules, so to speak--but it's also the legal means of doing so, hence following the rules. I don't think you can make that distinction one way or another.

Marches are, as they relate to political ends, thinly veiled attempts at intimidation. "We could have guns, and we could keep marching right into the political building of interest". I'm not saying that's the literal thought in the mind of many marchers, but that's where the concept of a march comes from. The original marches were by soldiers who may have been armed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783

It's not a low bar. People can be unconscious (or partially unconscious) of the culture they live in. And it is systemic if it reproduces a particular kind of view, image, or behavior; and corporate culture certainly does this. There are initiation rituals, gender expectations, rules of discourse, etc. that the culture itself reproduces. That's systemic.

Look, all I want to say is that women do not objectively ( ) have it better off than men do in America. You tend to downplay the significance of culture and its forms of representation, and how these forms reproduce themselves (especially today, when everything is "viral"). For me, these issues are extremely significant.

I no longer downplay the significance of culture. Why do you think I'm no longer ambivalent about-to-pro immigration? "Initiation rituals", "gender expectations", "rules of discourse", are all generic language for things within every culture. What about these things indicates women have such a hard time because "muh patriarchy" ?

Now, there is this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/sunday/do-millennial-men-want-stay-at-home-wives.html

There's a lot of bullshit (for example, Europe is an economic mess but should be emulated - and the shoddy research conclusion that increases in a subsidized behavior shows that that behavior is really the desired behavior on the part of the subsidizees!) in the backside of this article trying to argue against potential reasons for this trend shift, but it appears the pendulum may be beginning to swing the other way - with both men and women.

Haha, well it can't be "neither." If something's not achievable, then it's unachievable. Pretty much how that works.

And yes, I think it was always faux. Even if people were able to achieve certain goals, transcendence isn't real; so the reward is always displaced. Maybe some people were able to convince themselves that it would come eventually--but this still happens today, even among the secular crowd.

By neither I mean within a material context. Transcendence lies beyond the material.

There's more discussion on this in the comments: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/the-point-being/

I don't have time to respond at length now.

One of my favorite phrases from this blog is ‘epistemic humility.’ I think the more we learn not to trust hunches, intuition, instincts etc. the better off we’ll be. If there is one great takeaway from this whole BBT experience it has been ‘suspect your own mind.’
-poster

At this point I've developed a heuristic of suspicion regarding people who are suspicious of heuristics. Heuristics are an important cognitive tool.

 

[CiG]

There is no rhyme or reason to the "oppression olympics" as is evidenced by the recent relegation of gay men to a position closer to being privileged than was previously the case. Not that there are officially agreed upon tiers or anything.

For example men fill prisons and are most affected by the war on drugs.

This however does not place men lower on the privileged tier system compared with women, but it does put black men below white men and white women. But black men are still considered better off than black women are.

None of it makes any sense to me.

 

[Einherjar86]

Marches are, as they relate to political ends, thinly veiled attempts at intimidation. "We could have guns, and we could keep marching right into the political building of interest". I'm not saying that's the literal thought in the mind of many marchers, but that's where the concept of a march comes from. The original marches were by soldiers who may have been armed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783

I no longer downplay the significance of culture. Why do you think I'm no longer ambivalent about-to-pro immigration? "Initiation rituals", "gender expectations", "rules of discourse", are all generic language for things within every culture. What about these things indicates women have such a hard time because "muh patriarchy" ?

Well, I don't use the term "patriarchy" because it's abused. But I'm using generic language to describe particular phenomena within corporate culture--for instance, initiation rituals involving saying something demeaning to a female coworker, or expecting women to go on dates with their superiors, or thinking it's okay to interrupt women but not men, etc. etc.

You can have initiation rituals that aren't exclusive to men, or gender relations that don't expect women to cater to men. Generally speaking, all those institutions will end up excluding someone--but we can only do so much, so it seems pertinent, to me, to at least acknowledge the pervasive mistreatment of women in the corporate workplace (and beyond).

Now, there is this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/sunday/do-millennial-men-want-stay-at-home-wives.html

There's a lot of bullshit (for example, Europe is an economic mess but should be emulated - and the shoddy research conclusion that increases in a subsidized behavior shows that that behavior is really the desired behavior on the part of the subsidizees!) in the backside of this article trying to argue against potential reasons for this trend shift, but it appears the pendulum may be beginning to swing the other way - with both men and women.

Europe can be an economic mess and still be admirable in other respects. It doesn't all come down to money, Pewterschmidt.

By neither I mean within a material context. Transcendence lies beyond the material.

Then why are we talking about transcendence? Are we just entertaining the illusion for the sake of argument?

There is no rhyme or reason to the "oppression olympics" as is evidenced by the recent relegation of gay men to a position closer to being privileged than was previously the case. Not that there are officially agreed upon tiers or anything.

For example men fill prisons and are most affected by the war on drugs.

This however does not place men lower on the privileged tier system compared with women, but it does put black men below white men and white women. But black men are still considered better off than black women are.

None of it makes any sense to me.

I won't say it makes complete sense, but that doesn't put it beyond discussion and/or practicable solutions.

Also, not sure about black men being considered better off than black women... although I wouldn't make a staunch argumentative position out of that claim. I'm thinking of bell hooks's "Plantation Patriarchy," which basically outlines how/why black men have suffered more than black women.

But that book is over ten years old now, admittedly.

 

[rms]

I'm thinking of bell hooks's "Plantation Patriarchy," which basically outlines how/why black men have suffered more than black women.

what's the details here? seems incredibly hard to say either gender had it 'worse'

 

[Einherjar86]

Ha, agreed. hooks takes an intersectional approach, and is one of the critics who I think does it really well. She argues that America's expectations and stereotypes were different for black men than they were for black women, and that this had a measurable influence on the presence of black men in the workplace. Because they were viewed as more hostile and dangerous than black women, they were often turned away from jobs. Black women, meanwhile, were more commonly hired, making them the breadwinners for black families.

Due to rampant stereotypes and expectations about masculinity within the black community, many black men turned to violence in order to make up for feeling emasculated at home (i.e. "I can't provide for my family, my wife is earning the money," etc.), leading to a higher incarceration rate for black men.

Obviously, black women suffered in this situation too (both from physical abuse at home, and from having to take care of their families by themselves), and I agree that it's pretty ridiculous to try and argue who has it worse. I was mainly just trying to explain that I'm not sure that black men are often perceived as being better off than women, seeing as hooks's study was very influential and most people tend to acknowledge the limitations suffered by black men. Maybe this is only in academia, I don't really know. But I wouldn't say, based on what I've seen, that most people consider black men to be better off than black women.