Stuff you LOVE, baby

[tushantin]

I just hope there's some day on the calendar where the sisters say they'll protect the brothers.    Nothin' scarier in the schoolyard than the big sis coming in to lay the smackdown.

Oh, but they do! XD

See, this might sound sexist to English speaking but makes much sense to Sikhs and Hindus (if only because our minds and reason are shaped based on our language structure). Males in any cast are considered to be physically stronger than women (thus carrying out responsibility and labor for an entire family's earning), while women are stronger emotionally and are masters of domestic territory and inquisition/curiosity. Each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting, like two legs keeping us steady. The studies and ideas go on, but I'll get to the point.

Depending on the environment you grow up in, females play a more supportive role (for example, binding families together) and thus are considered invaluable, and there's this kind of a strange bond that ties people to them, of affection mixed with respect and yadda yadda, I can't seem to explain. But being physically weaker of the genders they're also more likely to be taken advantage of (like rape, humiliation, brothel, social undermining, etc.) Us brothers take up arms to protect them, I guess might have something to do with noble aspirations, more in the idea that they don't need to suffer harsh trials alone. They have us, who'd shield them from the worst of humanity. They already undertake more than enough pain in their lives, so if any asshole has a wise idea to mess with them they'd have to go through us Band of Brothers first!

But that doesn't always mean the sisters always lay back, watching us getting beat up. They always try to end violence, either wittily or simply humbly, always making sure to help us back away or assist us in our times of need. But the most notable assistance is not in the battlefield, but social and domestic environments. XD Although I do agree about that Big Sis thing, especially if she knows Karate! And also, I can't hit a girl!

There's a lesson to be learned here about genders. Neither is entirely better than the other, but we have this strange bond that is a complex mixture of love, irritation, valiance, mischief, etc. that is impossible to put it in simple terms. But when we accept it, sorrow just has no door to enter into our lives.

Accept fate, and you may thereby cheat it.

That statement sounds good, but... I still don't get it. XD

I just dislike the "everything happens for a reason" vibe to it, along with assertions of a divine creator. In this age, we know better than to ascribe random chance to divine workings or justice.

Er... Quantum Physics.

Also, everything does happen for a reason. Example: People get murdered, and the reason is that there is malice at the other end, and someone posted this reply to your post with reason that someone felt the need to reply to your post.

Oh, just curious (I ask this question to both you and Lord J; no, I'm not challenging your beliefs and will certainly not counter your honest statements; I'm only genuinely curious): Whether it comes from religion, culture, mythology or a fantasy concept, I take it that you don't believe in Fate?

[ZeaLitY]

Also, everything does happen for a reason. Example: People get murdered, and the reason is that there is malice at the other end, and someone posted this reply to your post with reason that someone felt the need to reply to your post.

Of course, causality exists. But religious people say "everything happens for a reason" to mean that God has this incredibly intricate plan, and that every possible hardship, whether it's the death of your child or being paralyzed from the neck down, was done specifically to you for your spiritual wellbeing. "God won't send you any burdens you can't deal with," and that stupidity.

Fate/determinism is a question for science. I seem to have free will, even if an illusion, so I strive to exercise it until science nails it down completely.

Sigh, I was having fun with the Stoics and still love a lot of the applied wisdom, but...after reading a couple books that explained the philosophy in-depth and traced its roots, it's obvious that it's all predicated on the assertion that humans have an ethereal soul; that people are just spirits dragging along corpses until separated. This is the basis of Stoic self-mastery; become spiritually virtuous, and everything else is selected in your interest according to nature and moderation. But I know that's false. The universe is a natural one; the word "supernatural" is a self-defeating oxymoron. Consciousness is an emergent phenomena of this incredible arrangement of matter. There are no gods, no heaven, no hell, and no soul; there is no divine plan for the universe, or any feint to trusting in divine will or fate. There is matter, frailty, and humanity, and nothing more. It is impossible to completely detach physical sensations and emotions from the meaning and impressions we derive from them. Some may do it through psychoactive drugs, extreme asceticism, and other ways of bending the mind, but unfortunately, I'm already too aware of the scientific method and the truth that I'm thankful to know. I'll have to deal with being rational.

I suppose I'll finish skimming the other few things and move on to Epicureanism. Apparently, Plato hated Democritus, so that's score one for Demo and his awesome gang right off.

[Lord J Esq]

See, this might sound sexist to English speaking...

Yes it does.

...but makes much sense to Sikhs and Hindus (if only because our minds and reason are shaped based on our language structure).

It may "make sense," but that does not preclude it from still being sexist, which it is.

Males in any cast are considered to be physically stronger than women (thus carrying out responsibility and labor for an entire family's earning), while women are stronger emotionally and are masters of domestic territory and inquisition/curiosity. Each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting, like two legs keeping us steady.

This is such a common sentiment--not unique to your part of the world at all. People and societies in general routinely reason that, because males are fractionally physically stronger than females, they should have control over the key social facilities--industry and commerce--while leaving females to provide some form or another of bullshit "support," like shoes on feet.

What a popular belief, given how simple its fallacy is!

Human beings are physically powerful regardless of their sex, and are capable of conditioning themselves to perform all physical labor yet invented, and are equally capable of acquiring the skill sets necessary to perform skilled labor. The fact that males are generally stronger than females is insignificant in determining who is qualified to work. There is not a task in the human world that females cannot perform. Indeed, in many societies--including your own India--females are routinely made to perform menial hard labor such as carrying water, typically for little or no remuneration. The reality of female physical labor is completely ignored both in those people's levels of compensation and in the bogus social theories which assert that females cannot or should not perform hard or skilled labor.

Meanwhile, all people are obliged to provide support to one another in their friendships and other relationships--again regardless of sex.

Tushantin, your religiosity and traditionalism hold you back from recognizing your own shortcomings.

Whether it comes from religion, culture, mythology or a fantasy concept, I take it that you don't believe in Fate?

I try not to "believe" in anything. Belief is inherently erroneous in matters of fact and logic. Believing is a cheap substitute for knowing. Nor am I picking nits or otherwise playing semantics. Though I understand your question, it is nonsensical because your conceptualization does not accommodate my actual mindset. I could easily replace your use of the word "believe" with something more appropriate, but then it would not really be the question you meant to ask.

The concept of physical fate is reliable enough inasmuch as events are determinable. However, there is nothing in our whole realm of awareness to suggest agency or desire among the known fundamental forces in the universe. I am "fated" to get old because of my genetic makeup, but that is simply a biological fact...not an external compulsion or celestial directive.

[tushantin]

ZeaLitY, I answered your post HERE. And Lord J, I answered yours HERE.

Anywhos, I wrote this whole thing in two hours flat and without going through for revision, so I may have placed some errors in this post. Just saying; these days I'm spending my time on things highest in priority than writing huge posts. @_____@" my fingers hurt...

[Shee]

This evening marks 8th audition since Tuesday.  Without counting callbacks.  Which stand at 3.  ABC audition went very very well. We shall see.


Edited to add:  This was right by where I parked for the audition today.  The El Nido Hotel.

[Lord J Esq]

Nice! I wonder if the bars are to keep Radical Dreamers out.

[tushantin]

Edited to add:  This was right by where I parked for the audition today.  The El Nido Hotel.

WTF! xDDD

[utunnels]

Awesome picture Shee. 

[Syna]

Fate/determinism is a question for science. I seem to have free will, even if an illusion, so I strive to exercise it until science nails it down completely.

Actually, it's squarely in the domain of philosophy.   Science can't say anything about the subject without, well, exiting the realm of science. There may be interesting data that science comes up with to add to the debate -- theories of consciousness in particular will be relevant -- but cannot say anything at all definitively, IMHO. (Philosophy is definitely using a lot of science these days, by the by, but science on its own can only suggest answers, not grant them.)

Last I checked (and it's been awhile) the pendulum had swung to determinism, which makes sense given that free will advocates have been doing semantic acrobatics for years trying to nail a definition that would work in the face of theories about causality. But we're about due for a philosophical paradigm shift anyway (and maybe even a scientific one, for that matter). I wouldn't be surprised if free will throws another curveball very soon, though they've lost a lot of ground, very likely for good.

Personally, I like the Norse concept of the Wyrd, as far as ideas that help you conceptualize matters like fate and determinism in terms of your actual experiences. There are elements to it that have the ring of "personal destiny," but there is also a sense of unplanned inevitability and chaos propelling it, as well as a connotation of it being your own doing, inextricably tied to who you are and how your life has gone by. Because even if we don't have choice as we understand it now, we can't say that our futures are not in some meaningful sense our own making, some kind of mysterious collaboration between ourselves and the forces of the world.

The reality of female physical labor is completely ignored both in those people's levels of compensation and in the bogus social theories which assert that females cannot or should not perform hard or skilled labor.

This.

Really, the issue isn't that females aren't usually as physically strong as males. It's something else. My personal guess it's that women have the babies, and biological realities being what they are, systems of oppression have been built around the various considerations inherent in that (some of which were unavoidable, most of which were).

[tushantin]

Personally, I like the Norse concept of the Wyrd, as far as ideas that help you conceptualize matters like fate and determinism in terms of your actual experiences.

Did I tell you that you were awesome?  Despite my unwavering reading interests in conceptualism you always bring something interesting to the plate. I had completely forgotten about the Wyrd. Speaking of which, don't they have a similar ring to "Ghost of Christmas Past/Present/Future"?

Really, the issue isn't that females aren't usually as physically strong as males. It's something else. My personal guess it's that women have the babies, and biological realities being what they are, systems of oppression have been built around the various considerations inherent in that (some of which were unavoidable, most of which were).

It ain't just your guess, but also one of the factors contributing to it.  But sexism in its own didn't develop simply at the time of literature's expansion, but has been carved into our existence. See the stray dogs, bugs, other animals, etc. Similar ritual. Both genders, even in the most diverse animal kingdom, seem to do well on their own in youth until BAM! Social norms.

[Shee]

Nice! I wonder if the bars are to keep Radical Dreamers out.

Ummm....something like that...  

Got called back for that short today, so I'll try to nab a better picture of the canopy.



Edit:  Here's one of the new pics.  I had another but don't know what happened to it in cyberspace.

[ZeaLitY]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI08edr-eb0
http://www.mediafire.com/?7t74adoot576tdd

Italodisco be my rock; my sword; my shield.

[Syna]

Did I tell you that you were awesome?  Despite my unwavering reading interests in conceptualism you always bring something interesting to the plate. I had completely forgotten about the Wyrd. Speaking of which, don't they have a similar ring to "Ghost of Christmas Past/Present/Future"?

Thank you. Could you unpack that Ghosts reference? I think I understand what you mean, but I'd like to see you draw the connections a little more taut.

It ain't just your guess, but also one of the factors contributing to it.  But sexism in its own didn't develop simply at the time of literature's expansion, but has been carved into our existence. See the stray dogs, bugs, other animals, etc. Similar ritual. Both genders, even in the most diverse animal kingdom, seem to do well on their own in youth until BAM! Social norms.

There is certainly behavior we could tentatively call sexist in the animal kingdom, but it's far from absolutely ubiquitous, and doesn't necessarily indicate anything about our own sexism. (Especially because female dominance is not uncommon.) The reasons for gender dominance in the animal kingdom vary wildly from species to species. While those reasons make for an interesting contrast to our own, they don't really offer us explicit answers, you know?

You may find bonobo culture interesting. They are the closest relative we have, along with chimpanzees, and are "female-dominated" where chimps are "male-dominated," even though the males are still individually larger than the female. (Terms are in quotes because they're sort of problematic projections of human concepts on animal behavior.) Anthropologists and primatologists have done some fascinating work with bonobo studies in contrast to chimpanzee studies.  

[ZeaLitY]

You may find bonobo culture interesting. They are the closest relative we have, along with chimpanzees, and are "female-dominated" where chimps are "male-dominated," even though the males are still individually larger than the female. (Terms are in quotes because they're sort of problematic projections of human concepts on animal behavior.) Anthropologists and primatologists have done some fascinating work with bonobo studies in contrast to chimpanzee studies.  

God, yes. Would that we had more in common with bonobos than other great apes... Theirs seems like such a thoughtful, feeling-driven, empathetic existence.

[Syna]

Zeality, where on earth are you getting all of this Italodisco stuff?? It's awesome!!