title

.

Discussion on whether a man persisting with an argument that he knows is false,
is as irrational as a woman who treats a pet like a baby
 
With fans of Dave Sim's Cerebus comic-books

 

I found the following discussion fascinating on several levels.

Cerebus, the longest-running comic series in human history, gained notoriety for presenting women as Emotional Voids, and men as Male Light.   The author, Dave Sim, brought things to a head in Issue 186 by speaking in the first person, and including almost no graphics.  Brilliant and courageous as I found it, I uploaded the text to The Reasoner's Library here, using my thinker's license to comment on Sim's silence on how men lusting after women creates them as Emotional Voids.*

One of Sim's fans and also a Genius Forum member, Greg Shantz, notified the Cerebus fan-group of my comment.  I joined the fan group's email list, to see whether they were fans of Issue 186 — in my view, the highlight and greatest achievement in the whole Cerebus strip.

This discussion turned out as a fascinating example of how 'being right' in the eyes of others, such as a woman, a buddy or a group, often takes precedence over 'being truthful' in one's own eyes. The mental blocks erected by the fans to avoid confronting their buddy-buddying behaviour, and to preserve their group disapproval of Sim's views on women, strangely went totally unnoticed by them.  So, Sim's greatest achievement is typically believed to lie in his contributions to the comic-book industry, ie. as an artist   — and not as a thinker.   I hold Sim responsible for cursing himself with that reputation, for he allows the fan club to exist as it does.

 

 


* Thanks to Margaret, the creator of the CerebusFanGirl website, who showed Sim rejected his earlier belief that lust was permitted by the Male Light's 'Mind' Muses, in Tangents.

N.B. that the letters are occasionally not in strict chronological order, so as to show the progress of different threads.   But I've left the message number (e.g. Message # 8907) as a guide.


 

 

contents_title.JPG
  1. A significant degree of difference
  2. Aggression vs. Passivity
  3. Individuality vs. Merging

 

 

Part 1. A significant degree of difference

 

Message #147211

Kelly Jones, a female thinker, added Dave Sim to her list of thinkers in the Reasoner's Library section of her site for issue #186 and also put the text of that issue on her site as well, with Winsor McKay's cartoon which Sim mentions in the text. There are some other philosophic writings on the site as well, which aren't too bad.

Here is the link: http://www.naturalthinker.net/

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147232

Heh. She has Dave's writings from "Reads" listed as 1995, even though the issue was published in 1994 (I know, I know, the TPB was probably published in 1995).

The reason that's funny for me in particular is that I got around to READING all of "Mothers and Daughters" in its final month--November 1995--which led to a very bizarre moment where it seemed as if Viktor Davis preciently KNEW the exact month in which I'd be reading the book.

- Larry Hart

 ∞ 

Message #147343

She has added this comment:

 

Lust and the Male Light

by Kelly Jones

Sim's exposition of the difference between Male Light and the Emotional Void is great stuff.

The only thing worth pointing out is that Sim didn't explain that if a Male Light is wavering, then it responds to someone else's (sexual) desire for that part of it which isn't Light, by becoming an Emotional Void.

And therefore, the 'Male Heart and Groin' is a falsehood of Sim's: having any sexual desire is not compatible with Male Light. It destroys others, and it destroys oneself.

If you reduce a person's intellectual strength to a biological organism, believing you can better grasp at their Light that way, you've made a case of mistaken identity. Ideas cannot be better grasped by turning them into a bag of blood and guts, or a physical/emotional sensation. Ideas are weakened, blurred and confused by feelings and intuitions. The blind man gathers evidence by turning over the evidence in his mind, and he doesn't become absorbed in the sensations and sounds.

A model of Male Light, who indulges in compromise, and has Evil Eyes, treating those with weak, insecure, wavering Lights as Emotional Voids to satisfy the Emotional Void within himself, is the main source of temptation and confusion for those wretched souls.

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147363

Chris W wrote:

I had a friggin CLOSET custom built especially for all my comics (the depth of the closet is the length of a longbox plus a couple of inches) when we bought our new house. Do you really think there was a chance that my wife made me throw out all my comicbooks last week?? geeez.

Steve Bolhafner replied:

Well, I didn't *think* so - even though you were very coy responding to questions if it was a joke. But as much as I love them, and as much as I disagree with a lot of what Dave says about them, the fact is that women can be irrational. (Hell, the *main* thing I disagree with Dave about is believing that that's not also true of us men. Of *course* women can be irrational. *Humans* can be irrational.)

Anyway, if your wife *did* suddenly develop the irrational urge to make you get rid of all your comics, and it really *did* come down to a choice between the comics or her, that would put you in a bad spot. As I said, I think most of us married women with whom such a thing would never come up, that tolerance and acceptance, at least, if not sharing of our obsession with comics was part of our choice in partners.

But people change. And you never know. And is your obsession with all those old comics such that you really *would* throw away your marriage over it, if push came to shove?

I'm not sure I'd call you "pussy-whipped" if you chose to answer that question "no." But I'd be surprised if such a thing happened to anyone on this list, and I can't even *imagine* that it could possibly happen to more than one of us.

Steve Bolhafner
P.S. - is there such a thing as "closet envy"?

 ∞ 

Message #147372

Steve Bolhafner: (Hell, the *main* thing I disagree with Dave about is believing that that's not also true of us men. Of *course* women can be irrational. *Humans* can be irrational.)

It is the feminine part that is irrational.

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147373

Greg,

Didn't you mention that - like me - you're mentally ill? I know tons of guys that are as bad as women (granting for the sake of argument Dave's categories merit).

Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147375

This isn't an argument against my point.

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147376

So the prevelance of many non-rational men doesn't indicate limitations in the value of overgeneralisations about gender? Doesn't there come a point where the amount of exceptions to a rule indicate a flaw in the rule itself? I don't recall you offering many *arguments* for why you agree with Dave's philosophy/theology (grand "I am a philosopher" statements and quotations from others don't count).

Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147378

Ryan: So the prevelance of many non-rational men doesn't indicate limitations in the value of overgeneralisations about gender?

No. Stating that women are irrational and men rational is a useful generalization.

 

Ryan: Doesn't there come a point where the amount of exceptions to a rule indicate a flaw in the rule itself?

No. There has never been a philosopher of the Infinite who was female: it has been entirely the province of men. Sacrificing yourself to the Infinite is the ultimate masculine act.

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147382

Wrong..aren't you forgetting that woman out in Montana? And how about the one in Lubbuck?

e
L nny

 ∞ 

Message #147393

Ryan: So the prevelance of many non-rational men doesn't indicate limitations in the value of overgeneralisations about gender?

Greg: No. Stating that women are irrational and men rational is a useful generalization.

Isn't "useful" more the grammar of,say, politics than the search for ultimate Truth that philosophy (your philosophy insofar as I have been able to perceive it, not all philosophy or anything) entails? If Larry will permit me : "now we know that, what do we know?"

 

Ryan: Doesn't there come a point where the amount of exceptions to a rule indicate a flaw in the rule itself?

Greg: No. There has never been a philosopher of the Infinite who was female: it has been entirely the province of men. Sacrificing yourself to the Infinite is the ultimate masculine act.

Elaborate. Valuing abstracts over flesh-and-blood reality doesn't seem necessarily indicative of the men-perceive-reality thinking that Dave subscribes to and that you appear to be a cheerleader for. Philosopher of the infinite could mean anything and nothing (Is George Lucas one ;-) ?)

Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147401

It doesn't matter how many men prove themselves to be irrational, because according to Dave (and Captain Philosopher here) that PART of men is FEMININE. Get it? It's like if I called your Works of Great Literature "books" and your trashy "lad" novels "music." "But they're ALL books," you might (reasonably) say. But no. The "good" ones are "books," the "bad" ones are "music." Nonsense!

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147403

Ryan: So the prevelance of many non-rational men doesn't indicate limitations in the value of overgeneralisations about gender?

Greg: No. Stating that women are irrational and men rational is a useful generalization.

If you're a misogynist, it's DAMN useful. "White people are industrious, black people are lazy" is ALSO a useful generalization. But we all know for WHOM it's a useful generalization.

 

Ryan: Doesn't there come a point where the amount of exceptions to a rule indicate a flaw in the rule itself?

Greg: No. There has never been a philosopher of the Infinite who was female: it has been entirely the province of men. Sacrificing yourself to the Infinite is the ultimate masculine act.

Hanging upside down in gravity boots and culminating your wank session with a self-made facial is entirely the province of men, too. It's still just masturbation, though.

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147419

I would not be the man I am today without "Cerebus." I would not be the man I am today without "Reads."

And while I think much of what Dave says is so wrong as to approach a reasonable person to question his sanity, there are some things he says that are unmistakably and unquestionably *true*, and it is also true that his primary targets, the radical doctrinaire feminists (see Rick? even I'll admit they're his "primary targets"), dismiss his true stuff as just as crazy as his crazy stuff, apparently unable to see the difference.

Steve Bolhafner

 ∞ 

Message #147438

Ryan: Isn't "useful" more the grammar of,say, politics than the search for ultimate Truth that philosophy (your philosophy insofar as I have been able to perceive it, not all philosophy or anything) entails?

As Aristotle put it, humans are political animals. Words as politics are useful in to the degree that they can unfetter the mind and direct it toward the Infinite.

 

Ryan: If Larry will permit me : "now we know that, what do we know?"

A woman is not a thing to be.

 

Ryan: Doesn't there come a point where the amount of exceptions to a rule indicate a flaw in the rule itself?

No. There has never been a philosopher of the Infinite who was female: it has been entirely the province of men. Sacrificing yourself to the Infinite is the ultimate masculine act.

 

Ryan: Elaborate.

A man is the person who follows what his reason tells him. Reasoning about reality always leads to the conclusion that it is Infinite. Acting on this conclusion is the final act of the masculine individual.

2 Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.

-From The Gospel of Thomas

 

Ryan: Valuing abstracts over flesh-and-blood reality doesn't seem necessarily indicative of the men-perceive-reality thinking that Dave subscribes to and that you appear to be a cheerleader for.

An abstract is an ideal; words are such abstractions. Reality, however, has no form which could be captured in words. The masculine person values words which point to this truth.

 

Ryan: Philosopher of the infinite could mean anything and nothing (Is George Lucas one ;-) ?)

Hardly. :-)

A philosopher of the Infinite is nothing other than the person who knows the Infinite and communicates his understanding of it to others. I can't think of a Lucas movies which does this.

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147420

Greg: It is the feminine part that is irrational.

Ah, Greg, would that this were true.

In fact, although masculine irrationality is sometimes found in women and feminine irrationality is sometimes found in men, generally speaking we each have distinctive *types* of irrationality. It's true that women are far more likely than men to coo and cuddle a puppy and seemingly forget entirely the difference between a pet and a baby. It's also true that men are more likely to argue long past the point where they've been proven wrong, pugnaciously battling to preserve their pride.

We're all crazy. Women are just crazy in a different way from us.

Steve Bolhafner

 ∞ 

Message #147423

I always liked the way the one, true Cirin put it, that the genders were complementary, or to put it in a not-so-nice way, that they deserved each other, served each other right.

Chris W

 ∞ 

Message #147445

That was one of the "truest" observations I got from Cerebus. It really hit me like a smack in the face that this was important, sublime stuff.

And I realize that Dave might not have intended it to be his own philosophy, coming as it does from a character's mouth and a female one at that. No matter. It went way beyond "author's intent". Perhaps even closer to "I made it all up and it came true anyway."

- Larry Hart

 ∞ 

Message #147504

I don't see anything that suggests Dave didn't intend it to be his philosophy and, other than coming from a Terimite, wouldn't still more-or-less stand by it. 'If God intended us all to be here, then we need both genders, each one to do the dirty jobs that the other gender won't do'.

Chris W

 ∞ 

Message #147439

Steve: We're all crazy. Women are just crazy in a different way from us.

What is the point of saying this?

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147441

What is the point of claiming that the irrationality in men is coming from the feminine in them? It would make sense if, say, 10% of men were irrational and 90% of women were to attribute the irrationality of the 10% to their being more "feminine" in this way than the average man.

But that isn't reality. The reality is that men and women are more-or-less equally irrational, and moreover the vast majority of them are irrational in different ways that fall into observably gender-based patterns. There are distinctively masculine irrationalities just as their are distinctively feminine irrationalities, but even though both of them can be found in real life among both males and females, the preponderance of masculine irrationality is found in males and the preponderance of feminine irrationality is found in females.

You can, if you want, define "rationality" as a male or masculine trait by arbitrary fiat and claim that any trace of irrationality in males *must* be feminine, because definitionally the masculine is rational, but this begs the question: on what basis do you make that definition? Not on observable reality, that's for sure.

Steve Bolhafner

 ∞ 

Message #147559

Steve: What is the point of claiming that the irrationality in men is coming from the feminine in them?

To draw a distinction between certain qualities and placing value on one type over the other.

 

Steve: You can, if you want, define "rationality" as a male or masculine trait by arbitrary fiat and claim that any trace of irrationality in males *must* be feminine, because definitionally the masculine is rational, but this begs the question: on what basis do you make that definition? Not on observable reality, that's for sure.

Genetic males have created all language and civilization, through reason. This is plain.

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147437

Steve Bolhafner wrote: It's true that women are far more likely than men to coo and cuddle a puppy and seemingly forget entirely the difference between a pet and a baby. It's also true that men are more likely to argue long past the point where they've been proven wrong, pugnaciously battling to preserve their pride. We're all crazy. Women are just crazy in a different way from us.

Yes, how irrationality is expressed by women is different to how it's expressed by men. But this doesn't really say anything yet. For instance, is it just a stylistic difference? Or is it a matter of degree, like 10% crazy compared to 90% crazy?

As I see it, the aggression expressed by a man persisting with a *point* in a discussion, even if it's wrong, is absolutely necessary for a dialectical redoubling. Meaning, the extra effort needed to reflect deeply on the truth of an idea. Reason and persistence go hand-in-hand.

But going-with-the-flow and indulging in mindless and childish play is no help at all in the metaphysical life, in the search for truth, in self-examination, and the like.

It looks like the difference between how men and women express irrationality (generally) is one of degree, not style.

Kelly Jones

 ∞ 

Message #147448

Kelly: As I see it, the aggression expressed by a man persisting with a *point* in a discussion, even if it's wrong, is absolutely necessary for a dialectical redoubling. Meaning, the extra effort needed to reflect deeply on the truth of an idea. Reason and persistence go hand-in-hand.

Rubbish. The inability to change one's mind when presented with new evidence is the absolute antithesis of reason.

Andrew Hickey

 ∞ 

Message #147453

I don't think you read what I wrote carefully enough. I didn't say that aggression is the same as rationality.

The problem is that people don't have *enough* of that pugnacious pride, that aggressive desire to win, that urge to conquer all opponents and obstacles. If winning at all costs comes first, then the mind is forced to find out what the real enemy is. That entails doubt, self-examination, and finding better weapons.

What usually happens is that the desire to win is conquered by the desire to get someone else's approval. That leads to pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments.

Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women. I don't think we'll hear any argument over that.

10% rationality compared to 0.01% rationality is a huge difference in our mediocre society.

Kelly Jones

 ∞ 

Message #147458

Kelly: Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women. I don't think we'll hear any argument over that.

You will, because this is just absolute drivel, and is what I was arguing against in the first place. Trying to win an argument when your point has been disproved is the absolute definition of stupidity. Continuing to argue in the face of reality is as far from being reasonable as it's possible to be. Playing with a baby is a neutral act, arguing a point you know to be wrong is actively irrational.

Andrew Hickey

 ∞ 

Message #147486

Andrew: Trying to win an argument when your point has been disproved is the absolute definition of stupidity.

Well, let's first look at your 'disproof':

Andrew: Continuing to argue in the face of reality is as far from being reasonable as it's possible to be. Playing with a baby is a neutral act, arguing a point you know to be wrong is actively irrational.

True, playing with a baby is neither rational nor irrational. But I think the context is women treating babies as pets. That is not rational.

And true, arguing a point that you know to be wrong is irrational. But the original point was arguing against what someone else has offered disproof for. So, the disproof might be false, or uncertain, or requires more detail, or one has a deep mental block about it.

I think only the latter shows irrationality, but still nowhere near as much as treating a baby like a pet. A pet is a psychological comfort to entertain bored and lonely people.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147468

Responding to Message #147437 & #147453

I think it's reasonable to say that I like this a lot. :)

TTM (Rick Sharer)

 ∞ 

Message #147469

Kelly: As I see it, the aggression expressed by a man persisting with a *point* in a discussion, even if it's wrong, is absolutely necessary for a dialectical redoubling. Meaning, the extra effort needed to reflect deeply on the truth of an idea. Reason and persistence go hand-in-hand.

Andrew: Rubbish. The inability to change one's mind when presented with new evidence is the absolute antithesis of reason.

Kelly: I don't think you read what I wrote carefully enough.

I think you're guilty of what Dave always accuses feminists of, assuming that someone who disagrees with you doesn't understand your point. I think he understands just fine. He just disagrees with you.

 

Kelly: I didn't say that aggression is the same as rationality.

Well, that's good, seeing as how they're opposites and all.

 

Kelly: The problem is that people don't have *enough* of that pugnacious pride, that aggressive desire to win, that urge to conquer all opponents and obstacles.

Excuse me?

Look around the world. You really think *lack* of aggresion is the problem?

You're calling "pugnacious" pride a *good* thing?

WTF?!?!?!!?

 

Kelly: If winning at all costs comes first, then the mind is forced to find out what the real enemy is. That entails doubt, self-examination, and finding better weapons.

This is just so wrong-headed I don't know where to begin.

The truth is NEVER found by making up your mind in advance and sifting through available facts for those that best back up one's position, by listening to others' arguments only for weaknesses to attack.

 

Kelly: What usually happens is that the desire to win is conquered by the desire to get someone else's approval. That leads to pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments.

I don't know why I'm bothering here, since you've announced up front that you think a true consideration of my point and willingness to see that you might be wrong is the opposite of rationality, but let's try.

Take a look at those two sentences. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in them? Or do you really believe that "pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments" is seen by *anyone* as a good way to "get someone else's approval"?

 

Kelly: Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women. I don't think we'll hear any argument over that.

Here's one. Not only have you perversely maintained that allowing pride to lead one into persisting in untruth when facts are laid before you shows "a much stronger will to reason," but you make the same error of irrationality my original post pointed out in the woman playing with the puppy: not being able to distinguish between a baby dog and a baby human being. Cuddling and cooing and playing with a baby human being is a rational thing to do, because such behavior is in fact necessary for the proper mental and emotional health of said baby, and is a part of the proper way to approach child-rearing.

 

Kelly: 10% rationality compared to 0.01% rationality is a huge difference in our mediocre society.

Well, gee, I guess a difference of several decimal points *is* a "huge difference* but on what are you basing these numbers? Are you admitting that the person arguing a false point out of pride is only 10% rational -- but claiming that a woman properly cherishing her own baby is 0.01% rational?

(shakes head)

Dave thinking that Margaret Thatcher may have lost her political power because he put her in his comic book, or that the tsunami a few years ago might have been YHWH's reaction to the impending finale of "Cerebus," is perfectly sane and sensible by comparison.

I think what you've done is prove my point about irrationality not being a feminine trait.

Steve Bolhafner

 ∞ 

Message #147471

Kelly: As I see it, the aggression expressed by a man persisting with a *point* in a discussion, even if it's wrong, is absolutely necessary for a dialectical redoubling. Meaning, the extra effort needed to reflect deeply on the truth of an idea. Reason and persistence go hand-in-hand.

Andrew: Rubbish. The inability to change one's mind when presented with new evidence is the absolute antithesis of reason.

Kelly: I don't think you read what I wrote carefully enough.

Steve: I think you're guilty of what Dave always accuses feminists of, assuming that someone who disagrees with you doesn't understand your point. I think he understands just fine. He just disagrees with you.

In fairness of Dave, he made a point of indicting his enemies for this, i.e. when he compared societal discourse to being stuck with a drunk at a party, with Dave having to keep repeating that "I understand what you are saying, but I think you are wrong, and will continue to think you're wrong no matter how many times you repeat the same stupid things" (paraphrased). Dave doesn't seem like the sort of guy to engage in hypocrisy.

ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147510

I agree, and I'm fairly distressed that this somehow came across to you as a putdown of Dave. Nothing of the sort was intended.

My point was that this guy who apparently thinks of himself as being on "Dave's side" and no doubt thinks that to some extent he thinks "like Dave" was treating his opponent in an argument the way Dave says people treat him. They can't *believe* he's not a Marxist-Feminist (to use his terminology), because anybody intelligent is *bound* to be a Marxist-Feminist, and he seems to be a really bright guy, so he must not ever have *had* Marxist-Feminism explained to him properly.

And he says, No,I understand just fine, I just don't agree.

And it just seemed to me that Kelly was doing the same thing to Andrew here. Oh, you disagree with me. You must not have understood my point.

And I'm pretty sure Andrew *did* understand his point.

I don't see where an accusation of hypocrisy against *Dave* enters into it anywhere. Kelly? Maybe, although my accusation against him was mainly that he seems to be an irrational boob. I'm not sure his thought process is coherent enough to reach the level of hypocrisy.

Steve Bolhafner

 ∞ 

Message #147488

Kelly: I don't think you read what I wrote carefully enough.

Steve: I think you're guilty of what Dave always accuses feminists of, assuming that someone who disagrees with you doesn't understand your point. I think he understands just fine. He just disagrees with you.

I don't think Andrew does understand. This means you don't either.

 

Kelly: I didn't say that aggression is the same as rationality.

Steve: Well, that's good, seeing as how they're opposites and all.

Maybe now is a good time to define aggression.

I see aggression as the will to power.

 

Kelly: The problem is that people don't have *enough* of that pugnacious pride, that aggressive desire to win, that urge to conquer all opponents and obstacles.

Steve: Excuse me? Look around the world. You really think *lack* of aggresion is the problem? You're calling "pugnacious" pride a *good* thing? WTF?!?!?!!?

Aggression, the will to power, in itself isn't totally bad. It's just a will to achieve, a very strong psychological force. It's the values energised by aggression that are the problem.

So if dominating others is the primary value, or winning every woman's heart, then it's just a mess. You get moronic tyrants like the murderous, malicious emperors of Rome; or Emotional Void makers.

 

Kelly: If winning at all costs comes first, then the mind is forced to find out what the real enemy is. That entails doubt, self-examination, and finding better weapons.

Steve: This is just so wrong-headed I don't know where to begin. The truth is NEVER found by making up your mind in advance and sifting through available facts for those that best back up one's position, by listening to others' arguments only for weaknesses to attack.

If one desires to win an argument at all costs, then a false solution becomes the enemy, not another person.

 

Kelly: What usually happens is that the desire to win is conquered by the desire to get someone else's approval. That leads to pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments.

Steve: I don't know why I'm bothering here, since you've announced up front that you think a true consideration of my point and willingness to see that you might be wrong is the opposite of rationality, but let's try.

I think you'll find I said that arguing a point doggedly, even if it is wrong, shows more rationality than treating a baby like a pet.

Once again, I'm not saying belligerence is the same as rationality.

I'm saying it (aggression) goes hand-in-hand with rationality. Or more accurately, with the birth of rationality, that grows-up out of vague, mindless, and muddle-headed passivity.

 

Kelly: What usually happens is that the desire to win is conquered by the desire to get someone else's approval. That leads to pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments.

Steve: Take a look at those two sentences. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in them? Or do you really believe that "pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments" is seen by *anyone* as a good way to "get someone else's approval"?

This is very interesting, Steve.

Do you think it is rational to get someone else's approval for one's own thoughts, to validate them?

Wouldn't you say that's a poor way to win an argument (meaning, to get to the truth of matters), and shows a lack of that all-conquering drive?

 

Kelly: Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women. I don't think we'll hear any argument over that.

Steve: Here's one. Not only have you perversely maintained that allowing pride to lead one into persisting in untruth when facts are laid before you shows "a much stronger will to reason,"

Well, say that one persists in untruth because of a mental block. In this case, I'd say that the person has a very strong sense that his entire system of thinking will collapse if he concedes the point. So, he is intuitively aware of consequences. He knows the effort it will take to amend his thinking. That is a stronger will to reason, because there is a lot of reasoning going on behind the curtain.

Counting the cost, so to speak.

 

Steve: but you make the same error of irrationality my original post pointed out in the woman playing with the puppy: not being able to distinguish between a baby dog and a baby human being. Cuddling and cooing and playing with a baby human being is a rational thing to do, because such behavior is in fact necessary for the proper mental and emotional health of said baby, and is a part of the proper way to approach child-rearing.

I think the average female doesn't actually reason this. She does it intuitively, like a cow intuitively lets its calf suck, or intuitively stands defensively between it and a predating eagle.

Mothers are driven by emotions, not reason. These days a mother would never be allowed to bury a dead baby in her backyard. Everyone would be up in arms, saying she probably killed it. That's the Emotional Void, the Birth Sphere.

I'm not saying babies don't need that coddling. But they don't need it from an irrational creature who operates on emotional whims. A rational individual is a much better parent, because they do things for reasons.

 

Kelly: 10% rationality compared to 0.01% rationality is a huge difference in our mediocre society.

Steve: Well, gee, I guess a difference of several decimal points *is* a "huge difference* but on what are you basing these numbers? Are you admitting that the person arguing a false point out of pride is only 10% rational -- but claiming that a woman properly cherishing her own baby is 0.01% rational?

I base those numbers on observation.

Yes, dogged argument might only be 10% rational, since it's not 100% rational to have mental blocks against truths.

I notice you wrote "cherishing *her own* baby". (my emphasis)

A parent shouldn't be possessive to properly look after the needs of a baby. That's animalistic, not human.

Why did you choose the word "cherishing" ?

 

Steve: Dave thinking that Margaret Thatcher may have lost her political power because he put her in his comic book, or that the tsunami a few years ago might have been YHWH's reaction to the impending finale of "Cerebus," is perfectly sane and sensible by comparison. I think what you've done is prove my point about irrationality not being a feminine trait.

Yes and no. One has to be aware of exceptions. There are exceptions both ways.

For instance, in your replies I think you show mental blocks about the difference between the way irrationality is expressed by men and women generally.

Defending motherhood is remarkably chivalrous, but is it rational?

Kelly Jones

 ∞ 

Message #147490

Wasn't there a Kelly Jones that drew Batman once? Are you him?

Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147493

Ryan: Wasn't there a Kelly Jones that drew Batman once? Are you him?

He's not me.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147495

Shame - IIRC his vampire Batman stuff was cool. What do you think of Dave's take on the inherant limitations of Philsophy without God?

Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147508

As far as I know, Dave worships Allah, or something similarly finite. Is that not true?

If God is a finite thing, rather than a not-finite 'thing', then God is something like my computer. Like, my computer is finite.

I define philosophy as being about Ultimate Reality - the nature of *everything*. What's ultimately true.

Computerlessness or Godlessness doesn't limit the not-finite..... So philosophy is also not limited by Godlessness.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147494

This Kelly is of the http://www.naturalthinker.net/ site that Greg S pointed us at the other day. I haven't had the time yet to do any serious reading on the site, but am planning on it.

And welcome to the list Kelly! You've read issue 186 I take it, how about some of Dave's other writings or the Cerebus story, proper? What one stood out the most for you (well, other then issue 186, which I think is a given)?

--
Take care,
Margaret
http://www.cerebusfangirl.com

 ∞ 

Message #147509

Margaret: You've read issue 186 I take it, how about some of Dave's other writings < http://cerebusfangirl.com/artists/index.php > or the Cerebus story, proper? What one stood out the most for you (well, other then issue 186, which I think is a given)?

Well, I joined this email group to explore some of the culture that Sim's views on women have birthed.

I find it interesting psychologically - exactly what Sim summarised at the end of issue 186: Are there any exceptions here? Has anyone felt repulsed by the Emotional Void? What are they doing about it?

Those views on the Male Light and Emotional Void are really the only positive contribution I can see of Dave Sim to humanity -- which is not to belittle it at all. I think he had magnificent courage in pushing as far as he has.

For me, a person's output has to have philosophical significance - the Male Light going to extremes - or I find it bland. In READS, Sim showed nervousness about publishing those views. He wasn't taking them far enough, as I indicated in my comment in the Reasoner's Library. Not surprising - few people can go that far.

But if he has go on to greater heights, please do point me towards his better work.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147520

Sure, "Tangent" and "Islam, My Islam" are both more extreme than Reads. Available to read on Margaret's site (link on main page here I believe).

Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147522

Thanks.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147523

Well, reading your comment on your site about issue 186: "And therefore, the 'Male Heart and Groin' is a falsehood of Sim's: having any sexual desire is not compatible with Male Light. It destroys others, and it destroys oneself." I would point you towards his series of essays entitled Tangent. From Tangent #1 (published in Cerebus #265):

This dovetailed with the "second source" in answering "Where do you think your ideas about women come from?": my own decision to alternate periods of intentional celibacy (as opposed to "not getting laid") with periods of monogamous sexual activity and semi-monogamous sexual activity. Having gone back and forth between the two states over the course of a decade, I can state unequivocally that celibate Dave Sim sees reality more clearly than sexually-active Dave Sim (who wilfully hypnotized himself into seeing the world in a manifestly untrue way and persuaded himself that feminist lies were true, that many feminist lies contained elements of truth, that feminist lies were not wholly untruthful). Surrendering an accurate perception of reality for a world of fairy-tale falsehoods was part of the high price of sex, a price I was no longer prepared to pay.

--
Take care,
Margaret

 ∞ 

Message #147533

Kelly Jones: Those views on the Male Light and Emotional Void are really the only positive contribution I can see of Dave Sim to humanity -- which is not to belittle it at all. I think he had magnificent courage in pushing as far as he has.

I always thought Sim's contribution was an innovative and often extraordinary use of the comics medium. He pushed an artform into new areas, a valuable achievement indeed. By contrast he's a third-rate thinker at best. Whilst he can often be a sharp observer, his inability to extend his own arguments to rational conclusions that are inconvenient to his point and his poor grasp of logical principles renders his philosophical commentaries of little value, and often laughably inept.

You do have to take the time out from playing with pet poodles, pet babies, or pet theories to notice this though.

Cheers,

Andrew Korn

 ∞ 

Message #147537

Andrew: You do have to take the time out from playing with pet poodles, pet babies, or pet theories to notice this though.

Rude dog!

TTM (Rick Sharer)

 ∞ 

 

 

Part 2. Aggression vs. Passivity

 

Message #147512

Kelly: I didn't say that aggression is the same as rationality.

Steve: Well, that's good, seeing as how they're opposites and all.

Kelly: Maybe now is a good time to define aggression. I see aggression as the will to power.

I see "comic book" as a book with comics, what most people call "graphic novels." That doesn't mean it's an intelligent thing for me to do to go around using that word by that definition and expecting myself to be understood.

Sure, you can make up your own definition of a word that has only a tenuous connection to what it means to the general populace. But what results can hardly be called "communication."

For the record:

Etymology: Latin aggression-, aggressio attack, from aggredi to attack

1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another

3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Notice the etymology, which leads to the second definition: attack.

Now (1) actually seems at first to be similar to your own, "a forceful action or procedure" - until one gets to the parenthetical "(as an unprovoked attack)" and the final "especially when intended to dominate or master"

Of course, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that the "aggression" engaged in by someone persisting in arguing on behalf of a falsehood when he's been proven wrong would be (3), and I don't think you're going to make that look rational.

The will to power? You remind me of Otto in "A Fish Called Wanda."

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.

 

Kelly: The problem is that people don't have *enough* of that pugnacious pride, that aggressive desire to win, that urge to conquer all opponents and obstacles.

Steve: Excuse me? Look around the world. You really think *lack* of aggresion is the problem? You're calling "pugnacious" pride a *good* thing? WTF?!?!?!!?

Kelly: Aggression, the will to power, in itself isn't totally bad. It's just a will to achieve, a very strong psychological force. It's the values energised by aggression that are the problem.

Well, in your own little world where that's what aggression means possibly. That's not what I was talking about in the original post you were responding to. Remember that? I was talking about pigheadedly maintaining a false position in an argument even after you've been proven wrong because of aggressive pride.

You can dance around all you like with redefined words and such, but you can't make that a rational thing to do.

 

Kelly: So if dominating others is the primary value, or winning every woman's heart, then it's just a mess. You get moronic tyrants like the murderous, malicious emperors of Rome; or Emotional Void makers.

Of course "dominating others," or at least trying to dominate others, is what the word "aggression *means* in English, as opposed to Kellyish.

 

Kelly: If winning at all costs comes first, then the mind is forced to find out what the real enemy is. That entails doubt, self-examination, and finding better weapons.

Steve: This is just so wrong-headed I don't know where to begin. The truth is NEVER found by making up your mind in advance and sifting through available facts for those that best back up one's position, by listening to others' arguments only for weaknesses to attack.

Kelly: If one desires to win an argument at all costs, then a false solution becomes the enemy, not another person.

I understand what you're saying here, and on some level I even agree with it. But it has NOTHING TO DO with my original point. You are now defining "winning an argument" as "finding the truth so that you're never wrong." Bully for you. That has nothing to do with my point that many men, when involved in an argument *with another person,* when that person has produced evidence that they are wrong, will persist in maintaining the untruth they started with, not only verbally but mentally, REFUSING TO SEE THE TRUTH because it threatens their idea of themselves as "right," and that this irrationality is both emotion based (pride is an emotion) and while not exclusively male generally a masculine failing.

That was what you set out to refute and instead you've said, "Well, if you really want to win an argument find out what the truth is." Bully for you. Absolutely right. Perfect. Except that's totally irrelevant to my point.

 

Kelly: What usually happens is that the desire to win is conquered by the desire to get someone else's approval. That leads to pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments.

Steve: I don't know why I'm bothering here, since you've announced up front that you think a true consideration of my point and willingness to see that you might be wrong is the opposite of rationality, but let's try.

Kelly: I think you'll find I said that arguing a point doggedly, even if it is wrong, shows more rationality than treating a baby like a pet.

A) Again, the original post you were "refuting," or trying to, talked about treating a pet like a baby, not vice-versa.

B) As a matter of fact, you're wrong. That is NOT what you said.

"Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women."

Nothing about treating one like the other. Putting down "playing with" either. Period.

 

Kelly: Once again, I'm not saying belligerence is the same as rationality. I'm saying it (aggression) goes hand-in-hand with rationality. Or more accurately, with the birth of rationality, that grows-up out of vague, mindless, and muddle-headed passivity.

You know, if you wrote those two sentences without the parenthetical "aggression" in there, at least 98% of English speakers would assume that the word "it" in the second sentence refers to the word "belligerence" in the first.

Are you a native speaker of English?

Your redefined Nietzschean "aggression" may or may not go "hand-in-hand" with rationality. Belligerance -- which is far closer to the ACTUAL TRAIT of the person I was FIRST TALKING ABOUT -- does not. It's so obvious that it does not that you had to throw in that "aggression" in there to skew the argument.

 

Kelly: What usually happens is that the desire to win is conquered by the desire to get someone else's approval. That leads to pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments.

Steve: Take a look at those two sentences. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in them? Or do you really believe that "pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments" is seen by *anyone* as a good way to "get someone else's approval"?

Kelly: This is very interesting, Steve. Do you think it is rational to get someone else's approval for one's own thoughts, to validate them?

What has that got to do with what I said? If my "will to power" is sapped by a desire to get someone's approval, why on earth would I call that person names? Calling him names is going to win his approval? This makes no sense whatsoever and when it's pointed out to you you don't even see it! You think I'm arguing that seeking approval is a good thing!

 

Kelly: Wouldn't you say that's a poor way to win an argument (meaning, to get to the truth of matters), and shows a lack of that all-conquering drive?

And again, you're redefining terms so that they have little do do with English and NOTHING to do with the original post. When I say that someone is persisting in maintaining an argument even when he's been proven wrong, obviously that person's definition of argument is not "to get to the truth of matters." His idea of winning is conquering the other person, of dominating.

And again, here's Mirriam Webster on "argument"

1 (obsolete) : an outward sign : indication

2 a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal
b: discourse intended to persuade

3 a: the act or process of arguing : argumentation
b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion
c: quarrel, disagreement

4: an abstract or summary especially of a literary work

5: the subject matter especially of a literary work

6 a: one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends
b: a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar
c: amplitude

I don't see "a search for truth" there. An argument is more like a verbal ping-pong match than it is like a philosophical investigation. Not only is that how people *use* the word, it was *obvious* from the context that I was using that common meaning. You can decide that "argument" *should* mean a search for truth, but that has no effect on whether or not many men actually do persist irrationally in arguments after they've been proven wrong.

Or after their opponents have been proven to be raving loons, so I guess I have to chalk this post up to my own irrationality.

 

Kelly: Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women. I don't think we'll hear any argument over that.

Steve: Here's one. Not only have you perversely maintained that allowing pride to lead one into persisting in untruth when facts are laid before you shows "a much stronger will to reason,"

Kelly: Well, say that one persists in untruth because of a mental block. In this case, I'd say that the person has a very strong sense that his entire system of thinking will collapse if he concedes the point. So, he is intuitively aware of consequences. He knows the effort it will take to amend his thinking. That is a stronger will to reason, because there is a lot of reasoning going on behind the curtain.

That's not a will to reason, it's a will to unreason. It is a preference for a "system of thinking" based on falsehood for fear of doing the mental work it would take to conform one's thinking to reality.

And you're defending this?????

Do you think for a moment Nietzsche would agree that the idiot your describing is exhibiting a "will to power"???

 

Kelly: Counting the cost, so to speak.

Steve: but you make the same error of irrationality my original post pointed out in the woman playing with the puppy: not being able to distinguish between a baby dog and a baby human being. Cuddling and cooing and playing with a baby human being is a rational thing to do, because such behavior is in fact necessary for the proper mental and emotional health of said baby, and is a part of the proper way to approach child-rearing.

Kelly: I think the average female doesn't actually reason this. She does it intuitively, like a cow intuitively lets its calf suck, or intuitively stands defensively between it and a predating eagle.

OK. You think that. So? Have you got any evidence of that? You also think "aggression" means "will to power" and "winning an argument" means finding the truth, whether it matches your original position or not. So I'm not really inclined to base a lot of faith in what you think.

 

Kelly: Mothers are driven by emotions, not reason. These days a mother would never be allowed to bury a dead baby in her backyard. Everyone would be up in arms, saying she probably killed it. That's the Emotional Void, the Birth Sphere.

Woah. I have no idea where this is coming from, but it's out there.

 

Kelly: I'm not saying babies don't need that coddling. But they don't need it from an irrational creature who operates on emotional whims. A rational individual is a much better parent, because they do things for reasons.

I don't disagree that a rational parent is probably better than an irrational parent. Most women I've known have struck me as more rational than . . . well, you, for instance.

 

Kelly: 10% rationality compared to 0.01% rationality is a huge difference in our mediocre society.

Steve: Well, gee, I guess a difference of several decimal points *is* a "huge difference* but on what are you basing these numbers? Are you admitting that the person arguing a false point out of pride is only 10% rational -- but claiming that a woman properly cherishing her own baby is 0.01% rational?

Kelly: I base those numbers on observation.

Whose observation? Your own? See above regarding "what you think."

 

Kelly: Yes, dogged argument might only be 10% rational, since it's not 100% rational to have mental blocks against truths.

Wow. "Not 100% rational." It is *totally irrational* to have "mental blocks against truth." Not 10% rational. Not even 0.01% rational. It's goofy to claim that it can be encompassed as any kind of rationality.

But then, you obviously have mental blocks against truth, so I guess I should make allowances.

 

Kelly: I notice you wrote "cherishing *her own* baby". (my emphasis) A parent shouldn't be possessive to properly look after the needs of a baby. That's animalistic, not human. Why did you choose the word "cherishing" ?

Steve: OK, OK, I'll cop to an over-the-top embellishment here. But again, the *original* post you were responding to didn't HAVE a baby. It had a pet that the woman *treated* like a baby.

"It's true that women are far more likely than men to coo and cuddle a puppy and seemingly forget entirely the difference between a pet and a baby. It's also true that men are more likely to argue long past the point where they've been proven wrong, pugnaciously battling to preserve their pride."

"Coo and cuddle" and "cherish" are similar concepts.

"pugnaciously battling" and "seeking the truth" through a "will to power" are not.

 

Steve: Dave thinking that Margaret Thatcher may have lost her political power because he put her in his comic book, or that the tsunami a few years ago might have been YHWH's reaction to the impending finale of "Cerebus," is perfectly sane and sensible by comparison. I think what you've done is prove my point about irrationality not being a feminine trait.

Kelly: Yes and no. One has to be aware of exceptions. There are exceptions both ways. For instance, in your replies I think you show mental blocks about the difference between the way irrationality is expressed by men and women generally. Defending motherhood is remarkably chivalrous, but is it rational?

(shakes head) Lives in a world all his own folks.

I don't think I want to play anymore Kelly, but thanks for the tediously irrational verbiage.

Steve Bolhafner

 ∞ 

Message #147513

Steve,

Sure, if you wish to end the discussion, that's fine with me.

I think it's a bit early to quit, though. It usually takes a few exchanges to clarify definitions. It's not semantic fluffing-about, but trying to narrow down what we mean by things.

By then we can actually have a decent discussion. I can see you're very interested in getting to some clear definitions. So, if we can both put egos aside, and be patient with communicating, then we might have a meaty and enlightening discussion.

I have just one rule: no name-calling, like 'irrational boob'. That's not encouraging sensible argument, and inflames others' tempers as well. Best way to win an argument is not with fists, eh?

Sound fair?

I'll respond to your post soon.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147515

Kelly: I think it's a bit early to quit, though. It usually takes a few exchanges to clarify definitions. It's not semantic fluffing-about, but trying to narrow down what we mean by things.

No, it's you using words in a way that is completely incompatible with the way the English-speaking world uses them.

 

Kelly: I have just one rule: no name-calling, like 'irrational boob'. That's not encouraging sensible argument, and inflames others' tempers as well. Best way to win an argument is not with fists, eh?

But Kelly, you *are* an irrational boob, or at least your argument is the argument of one. The whole thrust of your 'argument' (if one can call it that) has been that irrationality is somehow OK when it's manly enough.

Andrew Hickey

 ∞ 

Message #147517

Kelly: I think it's a bit early to quit, though. It usually takes a few exchanges to clarify definitions. It's not semantic fluffing-about, but trying to narrow down what we mean by things.

Andrew: No, it's you using words in a way that is completely incompatible with the way the English-speaking world uses them.

It shouldn't be too hard to see a relationship between 'aggression' and 'will to power'.

I'll try to make things a little clearer in my reply to Steve, coming up next.

 

Kelly: I have just one rule: no name-calling, like 'irrational boob'. That's not encouraging sensible argument, and inflames others' tempers as well. Best way to win an argument is not with fists, eh?

Andrew: But Kelly, you *are* an irrational boob, or at least your argument is the argument of one. The whole thrust of your 'argument' (if one can call it that) has been that irrationality is somehow OK when it's manly enough.

I think it's better communication to say, 'Your argument is irrational because....'

Well, here I'm persisting with my point, because I'm having difficulty communicating it to others, rather than because it has been disproven. The actual point is being misidentified by others as something else. This as a response to the ad hominem.

I'll say it again, a little more clearly:

Person A's persistence with a point when a disproof has been offered by Person B (the original argument doesn't say that Person A knows the disproof offered is true) is *not as irrational* as playing with a baby as if it is a toy or pet.

If we want to change the original argument, then if Person A persists *while knowing their argument is false*, then they are *only marginally* more rational than the petting mother.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147528

Kelly: Well, here I'm persisting with my point, because I'm having difficulty communicating it to others,

No, you're really not. We understand exactly what you're saying. It's just wrong.

 

Kelly: If we want to change the original argument, then if Person A persists *while knowing their argument is false*, then they are *only marginally* more rational than the petting mother.

No, they are not. That is, as I have said before, the very definition of irrationality.

It.
Is.
Not.
That.
I.
Do.
Not.
Understand.
What.
You.
Are.
Saying.
It.
Is.
That.
What.
You.
Are.
Saying.
Is.
Wrong.

*plonk*

Andrew Hickey

 ∞ 

Message #147529

Kelly: I'll say it again, a little more clearly: Person A's persistence with a point when a disproof has been offered by Person B (the original argument doesn't say that Person A knows the disproof offered is true) is *not as irrational* as playing with a baby as if it is a toy or pet.

This might be nit-picky, but Steve was talking about treating a pet as if it were a baby, not the other way around.

 

Kelly: If we want to change the original argument, then if Person A persists *while knowing their argument is false*, then they are *only marginally* more rational than the petting mother.

???

You lose me here. And I'm not trying to shut down this conversation, which I actually find interesting. But if person A KNOWS his argument is false and persists in defending it anyway, isn't that not only irrational but "anti-rational"?

- Larry Hart

 ∞ 

Message #147531

Larry: This might be nit-picky, but Steve was talking about treating a pet as if it were a baby, not the other way around.

That's not nit-picky, it's an important distinction. Treating a pet as a baby is the example that Sim always uses as an ultimate case of the irrational woman. Someone who treats a pet as if it's a person (and no, I don't think that behavior is limited to women AT ALL) is definitely behaving in a somewhat irrational manner. I'm not sure, exactly, what would qualify as "treating a baby as a pet," but it sounds like child abuse to me, and it really doesn't have much to do with this discussion. Kelly seems to keep switching this -- originally she was talking about just cuddling a baby, which is at least a neutral act, and in some ways a very rational act because it contributes to raising a child in a healthy, well-adjusted manner. The fact that Kelly seems to equate (or at least confuse) a parent's love for a child with affection towards a pet, is certainly a blow towards her own rationality.

And in response to Kelly, Steve has been arguing in a consistently rational manner and making some excellent points, which you have proceeded to completely misunderstand and bury in your nonsense replies where words, apparently, mean whatever you want them to mean, and where it's considered "rational" to persist in an argument even after it's been proven that you're wrong and even after you KNOW that you're wrong. That is perhaps the most IRrational act possible.

---
Ed Howard

 ∞ 

Message #147532

Ed Howard: And in response to Kelly, Steve has been arguing in a consistently rational manner and making some excellent points, which you have proceeded to completely misunderstand and bury in your nonsense replies where words, apparently, mean whatever you want them to mean...

I'm more on Steve's side of the argument, but I DO think he does his side a disservice by dismissing Kelly so utterly that it's (apparently) ok to throw in gratuitous insults. I think Steve makes his case quite nicely without that, and that the tactic backfires.

And I'd prefer to see this discussion go on and on...but only on the merits of the arguments and not the schoolyard namecalling.

Also, is there some way we can tie it into promoting "Glamourpuss" and "Judenhass"? First changing the subject line, of course. ;)

- Larry Hart

 ∞ 

Message #147550

Larry: This might be nit-picky, but Steve was talking about treating a pet as if it were a baby, not the other way around.

Yes, my apologies.

I didn't see the distinction as important, so naturally I was able to switch.

Larry's explanation helped clear things up. Though, quite honestly I still cannot see any significant difference between :

- treating a pet like a baby
- treating a baby like a pet

in terms of the level of rationality involved.

The first one is probably slightly more rational than the second, since it might include the reasonable purpose of learning how to care for a vulnerable creature before trying genuine baby-care.

Steve, is that what you intended by "cooing and cuddling" a pet.....?

 

Kelly: If we want to change the original argument, then if Person A persists *while knowing their argument is false*, then they are *only marginally* more rational than the petting mother.

Larry: ??? You lose me here. And I'm not trying to shut down this conversation, which I actually find interesting. But if person A KNOWS his argument is false and persists in defending it anyway, isn't that not only irrational but "anti-rational"?

Your persistence with this point, in this intelligent manner, is great to see.

As I keep reiterating, we're talking about levels of rationality. At least, I always have been in this discussion.

Sticking to a false argument, that one knows is false, is not entirely irrational, because *knows* it is false. To know that, one isn't totally incapable of reasoning, otherwise there would be no pugnaciousness. It's the guilt arising from the reasoned knowledge and a deep mental resistence to that knowledge, that causes the antagonism.

Can you see that?

So, *while not 100% rational*, it still has some glimmer of reason.

 

The key here is to work out what is likely to be happening mentally with the person who is treating a pet like a baby.

I'm assuming the person isn't training themselves to care for a baby by practising on another vulnerable creature. That is, they're not engaging in a fully-reasoned, thoughtful, purposeful act.

Equally, the person *knows* to some extent that they're treating the pet like a baby, because they have to be consistent with the dress-ups, shampoos, toys, and so forth. So, is the level of reasoned knowledge lesser or greater or the same, as the guilt-driven and argumentative person?

Does it display more or less mental blocks? Does it have more or less ability to reason?

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147552

Kelly: Yes, my apologies. I didn't see the distinction as important, so naturally I was able to switch. Larry's explanation helped clear things up.

That should have been Edward, not Larry.

(Another of those switches, that aren't intentionally rude or trying to skew truths. Just the brain creating categories on the fly, and not seeing enough significant contrasts enough to distinguish things.)

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147560

Kelly: That should have been Edward, not Larry. (Another of those switches, that aren't intentionally rude or trying to skew truths. Just the brain creating categories on the fly, and not seeing enough significant contrasts enough to distinguish things.)

Translation: Oops.

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147534

Kelly: I'll say it again, a little more clearly: Person A's persistence with a point when a disproof has been offered by Person B (the original argument doesn't say that Person A knows the disproof offered is true) is *not as irrational* as playing with a baby as if it is a toy or pet.

Amen and amen.

TTM (Rick Sharer)

 ∞ 

Message #147540

Kelly: Steve, Sure, if you wish to end the discussion, that's fine with me. I think it's a bit early to quit, though. It usually takes a few exchanges to clarify definitions. It's not semantic fluffing-about, but trying to narrow down what we mean by things. By then we can actually have a decent discussion. I can see you're very interested in getting to some clear definitions. So, if we can both put egos aside, and be patient with communicating, then we might have a meaty and enlightening discussion. I have just one rule: no name-calling, like 'irrational boob'. That's not encouraging sensible argument, and inflames others' tempers as well. Best way to win an argument is not with fists, eh? Sound fair? I'll respond to your post soon.

If I read this correctly, you're saying "turn down the aggression"?

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147548

I thought she meant 'turn it on, turn it on again."

John L

 ∞ 

Message #147518

To those of you following the discussion between Steve and myself, what's your opinion on Steve's style? Is he vigorously pursuing his arguments using reasons? Or is he unconcerned about the truth of the matter, a bit lazy, and not really bothering to be coherent?

Would you say there is an element of aggression in his seeking to find the underlying truth, and to convey it to me? Or not?

Just out of interest.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147519

Steve's a reasonable guy. You're a putz.

John L

 ∞ 

Message #147536

This is why Steve's "laziness" is allowed to slide many times here...because he's a good guy. :)

TTM (Rick Sharer)

 ∞ 

Message #147530

Kelly: To those of you following the discussion between Steve and myself, what's your opinion on Steve's style? Is he vigorously pursuing his arguments using reasons? Or is he unconcerned about the truth of the matter, a bit lazy, and not really bothering to be coherent? Would you say there is an element of aggression in his seeking to find the underlying truth, and to convey it to me? Or not? Just out of interest.

Good question, actually.

I do with Steve would cut out the dismissive insults. I think he's more correct than incorrect with his own points, but he does his argument no good by acting like a schoolyard bully.

I do see his frustration over your use of words in non-standard ways. I have that problem with Dave Sim myself.

Me, I have no trouble with aggeeing to any common definition and proceeding from there, but you have to be VERY careful of what follows from that. One can, if one wishes, DEFINE "masculine" as "the rational aspect of any thinking being" and from there dismiss any evidence of irrationality in men as those men acting "feminine". But if one does so, one can't claim to have PROVEN that men are more rational than women. All it means is he's defined masculinity in a way where it quite possibly no longer describes men.

And if one further goes on to say that no...by definition "masculine" must describe men, then one is being WILLFULLY deceptive in his definitions.

- Larry Hart

 ∞ 

Message #147551

Larry: I do with Steve would cut out the dismissive insults. I think he's more correct than incorrect with his own points, but he does his argument no good by acting like a schoolyard bully.

As Raithmundu points out, this wasn't a criticism of Steve. It was to point to Steve's behaviour as belying his point that reasoning and persistent aggression are opposed.

I thought an ad hominem appropriate.

 

Larry: Me, I have no trouble with aggeeing to any common definition and proceeding from there, but you have to be VERY careful of what follows from that. One can, if one wishes, DEFINE "masculine" as "the rational aspect of any thinking being" and from there dismiss any evidence of irrationality in men as those men acting "feminine". But if one does so, one can't claim to have PROVEN that men are more rational than women. All it means is he's defined masculinity in a way where it quite possibly no longer describes men.

One can make useful generalisations, as Greg Shantz said.

If I observe that the majority of males I encounter are using some degree of reasoning, and the majority of females are using a significantly lesser degree, then it would be wrong for me to ignore that. I'd have no reason to ignore that evidence.

I cannot be certain of my generalisation, seeing as I'm unlikely to meet all the sentient beings that have ever existed or will exist.

However, I don't think that uncertainty is the problem here. I think it's more to do with the fact that men typically don't want to be conscious of the generally different level of rationality between men and women, because that would lead to certain consequences.....

 

Larry: And if one further goes on to say that no...by definition "masculine" must describe men, then one is being WILLFULLY deceptive in his definitions.

Agreed. It's important to be consistent, or at least try to convey enough context to show when a word is being used with different and even oppositional meanings.

I define masculine as qualities more often displayed in men than in women, but that there are exceptions (which don't affect the rule).

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147556

Kelly: As Raithmundu points out,

lol, you just made Rain a member of the steambot Star Wars club. :)

TTM

 ∞ 

Message #147558

Larry: Good question, actually. I do with Steve would cut out the dismissive insults. I think he's more correct than incorrect with his own points, but he does his argument no good by acting like a schoolyard bully.

Kelly: As Raithmundu points out, this wasn't a criticism of Steve. It was to point to Steve's behaviour as belying his point that reasoning and persistent aggression are opposed.

Noooooo, Rainmandu (note the spelling) was pointing out that Steve was being aggressive, and that you (after having previously championed aggression) were calling him a schoolyard bully.

"Punching people in the face is the clearest way to make one's point."

POW!

"Hey, you hit me in the face!"

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147521

Steve,

Cutting to the chase:

Steve: many men, when involved in an argument *with another person,* when that person has produced evidence that they are wrong, will persist in maintaining the untruth they started with, not only verbally but mentally, REFUSING TO SEE THE TRUTH because it threatens their idea of themselves as "right," and that this irrationality is both emotion based (pride is an emotion) and while not exclusively male generally a masculine failing.

Now we're getting somewhere. What we've got is valuing (or desiring to be) "right" over "truth".

Let's explore it a bit more.

You talk of the pride of "being right". If a person cannot stand the indignity of being wrong, then he will be very interested to know how to be always right, isn't that so?

There is some degree of rationality, albeit low, in "know how".

We're not talking about 100% rationality, just 10%.

 

Kelly: I think you'll find I said that arguing a point doggedly, even if it is wrong, shows more rationality than treating a baby like a pet.

Steve: A) Again, the original post you were "refuting," or trying to, talked about treating a pet like a baby, not vice-versa. B) As a matter of fact, you're wrong. That is NOT what you said: "Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women." Nothing about treating one like the other. Putting down "playing with" either. Period.

So, let's talk about the level of reasoning used in treating a pet like a baby.

At least show me how treating a pet like a baby is *at least* as rational as a strong desire to know-how to be always right. Here's a reminder of what we're talking about, but don't vomit on your keyboard:

Adorable Pets? (youtube video)

:-)

 

Kelly: Once again, I'm not saying belligerence is the same as rationality. I'm saying it (aggression) goes hand-in-hand with rationality. Or more accurately, with the birth of rationality, that grows-up out of vague, mindless, and muddle-headed passivity.

Steve: You know, if you wrote those two sentences without the parenthetical "aggression" in there, at least 98% of English speakers would assume that the word "it" in the second sentence refers to the word "belligerence" in the first. Are you a native speaker of English?

Yes, sorry if that confused you. I was just using another word for aggression, then slipped in the parenthesis to show the association.

 

Steve: Your redefined Nietzschean "aggression" may or may not go "hand-in-hand" with rationality. Belligerance -- which is far closer to the ACTUAL TRAIT of the person I was FIRST TALKING ABOUT -- does not. It's so obvious that it does not that you had to throw in that "aggression" in there to skew the argument.

Nietzsche contrasted the will to power with the will to truth. I think that's very helpful.

Both of them have "will" in there.

That's what I was getting at when talking about the energy that drives one, which is aggressive.

In the will to truth, there's aggression against falsehood. It's an energetic drive to truth. In the will to power, there's aggression against weakness. Belligerence and aggression could be waging war against anything. They're also forceful, determined, and persistent.

 

Kelly: What usually happens is that the desire to win is conquered by the desire to get someone else's approval. That leads to pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments.

Steve: Take a look at those two sentences. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in them? Or do you really believe that "pettiness, name-calling and aimless arguments" is seen by *anyone* as a good way to "get someone else's approval"?

Kelly: This is very interesting, Steve. Do you think it is rational to get someone else's approval for one's own thoughts, to validate them?

Steve: What has that got to do with what I said? If my "will to power" is sapped by a desire to get someone's approval, why on earth would I call that person names? Calling him names is going to win his approval? This makes no sense whatsoever and when it's pointed out to you you don't even see it! You think I'm arguing that seeking approval is a good thing!

No, that's not what I was getting at.

When a person wants to please someone else, and get their approval, they are more interested in "being right" in that person's eyes. They're not as interested in "truth". So, they are likely to be interested in winning an argument only to a very limited extent. They won't really engage in the ideas, but try to bludgeon their opponent into submission by calling them names and so forth.

 

Kelly: Wouldn't you say that's a poor way to win an argument (meaning, to get to the truth of matters), and shows a lack of that all-conquering drive?

Steve: And again, you're redefining terms so that they have little do do with English and NOTHING to do with the original post. When I say that someone is persisting in maintaining an argument even when he's been proven wrong, obviously that person's definition of argument is not "to get to the truth of matters." His idea of winning is conquering the other person, of dominating.

Ok, I see from this post that you were talking about persisting in an argument when one knows oneself to be wrong. It wasn't clear earlier.

 

Steve (from Merriam Webster dictionary): 2b: discourse intended to persuade; 3a: the act or process of arguing : argumentation ... I don't see "a search for truth" there.

I think "winning an argument" (to get to the truth of matters) could be covered by 2b or 3a.

 

Steve: An argument is more like a verbal ping-pong match than it is like a philosophical investigation.

My view of, and interest in, argument is to encourage people to find an angle of thinking to gain philosophical insights.

So it all depends what one's aim is.

 

Steve: Not only is that how people *use* the word, it was *obvious* from the context that I was using that common meaning. You can decide that "argument" *should* mean a search for truth, but that has no effect on whether or not many men actually do persist irrationally in arguments after they've been proven wrong.

True, many if not most men persist with a point they know to be false.

Argumentativeness shows a greater relationship to the search for truth, than does playing with a pet as if it is a baby.

 

Steve: Or after their opponents have been proven to be raving loons, so I guess I have to chalk this post up to my own irrationality.

It might not be ultimately helpful to use these name-calling tactics.

I personally find anger has an unhelpful effect on one's reasoning. It's easier to simplify things with a view to explaining. Bludgeoning others is so easy to do, but it makes them curl up and refuse to reason calmly, and it wastes one's own energy too.

 

Kelly: Note the original point: that the dogged will to win an argument, typical of men, shows a much stronger will to reason than does playing with a pet poodle or baby, typical of women. I don't think we'll hear any argument over that.

Steve: Here's one. Not only have you perversely maintained that allowing pride to lead one into persisting in untruth when facts are laid before you shows "a much stronger will to reason,"

Kelly: Well, say that one persists in untruth because of a mental block. In this case, I'd say that the person has a very strong sense that his entire system of thinking will collapse if he concedes the point. So, he is intuitively aware of consequences. He knows the effort it will take to amend his thinking. That is a stronger will to reason, because there is a lot of reasoning going on behind the curtain.

Steve: That's not a will to reason, it's a will to unreason. It is a preference for a "system of thinking" based on falsehood for fear of doing the mental work it would take to conform one's thinking to reality.

I think the majority of males, or thinking and problem-solving persons, compartmentalise their minds. It's very common. It's a survival trait, such as comes in handy when in a crisis situation. Emotions are blocked off, or parts of one's consciousness that interfere with the situation at hand.

When there is enough attention to focus on the situation, then the blocked-off areas can be dealt with more calmly. It's not idiotic, in my view, but a normal and natural process for enlightening oneself and "doing the mental work...to conform one's thinking to reality".

 

Kelly: Counting the cost, so to speak.

Steve: but you make the same error of irrationality my original post pointed out in the woman playing with the puppy: not being able to distinguish between a baby dog and a baby human being. Cuddling and cooing and playing with a baby human being is a rational thing to do, because such behavior is in fact necessary for the proper mental and emotional health of said baby, and is a part of the proper way to approach child-rearing.

Kelly: I think the average female doesn't actually reason this. She does it intuitively, like a cow intuitively lets its calf suck, or intuitively stands defensively between it and a predating eagle.

Steve: OK. You think that. So? Have you got any evidence of that?

Well, I am female, so I have insight into how the feminine mind works.

 

Steve: You also think "aggression" means "will to power" and "winning an argument" means finding the truth, whether it matches your original position or not. So I'm not really inclined to base a lot of faith in what you think.

Words are defined for convenience. They are tools for understanding the world. So we can make them fit our purposes.

And, regarding your second point, it's to no purpose to get anyone to believe anything. Just to stimulate the mind to speak with itself.

 

Kelly: Mothers are driven by emotions, not reason. These days a mother would never be allowed to bury a dead baby in her backyard. Everyone would be up in arms, saying she probably killed it. That's the Emotional Void, the Birth Sphere.

Steve: Woah. I have no idea where this is coming from, but it's out there.

Have you read Sim's views in the Birth and Death Sphere in issue 186? It's far more "out there".

 

Kelly: I'm not saying babies don't need that coddling. But they don't need it from an irrational creature who operates on emotional whims. A rational individual is a much better parent, because they do things for reasons.

Steve: I don't disagree that a rational parent is probably better than an irrational parent. Most women I've known have struck me as more rational than . . . well, you, for instance.

I'm not surprised. You seem to have a large component of feminine-mindedness in you.

 

Kelly: 10% rationality compared to 0.01% rationality is a huge difference in our mediocre society.

Steve: Well, gee, I guess a difference of several decimal points *is* a "huge difference* but on what are you basing these numbers? Are you admitting that the person arguing a false point out of pride is only 10% rational -- but claiming that a woman properly cherishing her own baby is 0.01% rational?

Kelly: I base those numbers on observation.

Steve: Whose observation? Your own? See above regarding "what you think."

But we all have to rely on our own thinking, not the views of others.

Surely you don't think truth is understood by consensus?

 

Kelly: Yes, dogged argument might only be 10% rational, since it's not 100% rational to have mental blocks against truths.

Steve: Wow. "Not 100% rational." It is *totally irrational* to have "mental blocks against truth." Not 10% rational. Not even 0.01% rational. It's goofy to claim that it can be encompassed as any kind of rationality.

You're free to think so.

I think differently.

 

Kelly: I notice you wrote "cherishing *her own* baby". (my emphasis) A parent shouldn't be possessive to properly look after the needs of a baby. That's animalistic, not human. Why did you choose the word "cherishing" ?

Steve: OK, OK, I'll cop to an over-the-top embellishment here. But again, the *original* post you were responding to didn't HAVE a baby. It had a pet that the woman *treated* like a baby:

"It's true that women are far more likely than men to coo and cuddle a puppy and seemingly forget entirely the difference between a pet and a baby. It's also true that men are more likely to argue long past the point where they've been proven wrong, pugnaciously battling to preserve their pride."

"Coo and cuddle" and "cherish" are similar concepts.

Do you think it's rational to coo and cuddle anything?

 

Steve: "pugnaciously battling" and "seeking the truth" through a "will to power" are not.

I differ with you here. A will to power is a kind of pugnacious battling. Also, the will to truth is a kind of fisticuffs with falsehood, which really is a pugnacious battling.

Here's a view of domination that comes to mind:

"The whip and rope are necessary,
Else he might stray down some dusty road.
Being well trained, he becomes naturally gentle.
Then, unfettered, he obeys his master."

--- Taming the Bull
(from "Ten Bulls of Kakuan", a Zen text about the Mind of Enlightenment)

 

Steve: Dave thinking that Margaret Thatcher may have lost her political power because he put her in his comic book, or that the tsunami a few years ago might have been YHWH's reaction to the impending finale of "Cerebus," is perfectly sane and sensible by comparison. I think what you've done is prove my point about irrationality not being a feminine trait.

Kelly: Yes and no. One has to be aware of exceptions. There are exceptions both ways. For instance, in your replies I think you show mental blocks about the difference between the way irrationality is expressed by men and women generally. Defending motherhood is remarkably chivalrous, but is it rational?

Steve: (shakes head) Lives in a world all his own folks. I don't think I want to play anymore Kelly, but thanks for the tediously irrational verbiage.

I do live in a world "all my own". How can I escape my own consciousness?

But how about answering the question?

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147524

Kelly: Well, I am female, so I have insight into how the feminine mind works.

Way-hey! A girl in the clubhouse! Do you like Star Wars?

;-)
Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147570

Larry: I do with Steve would cut out the dismissive insults. I think he's more correct than incorrect with his own points, but he does his argument no good by acting like a schoolyard bully.

Kelly: As Raithmundu points out, this wasn't a criticism of Steve. It was to point to Steve's behaviour as belying his point that reasoning and persistent aggression are opposed.

Rainmanndu: Noooooo, Rainmandu (note the spelling) was pointing out that Steve was being aggressive, and that you (after having previously championed aggression) were calling him a schoolyard bully. "Punching people in the face is the clearest way to make one's point."

That's the complete opposite of what I said, actually.

To refresh your memory:

1. In an earlier post, I mentioned name-calling as arising from the desire to please someone. It shows insufficient aggression in reasoning:

Kelly: When a person wants to please someone else, and get their approval, they are more interested in "being right" in that person's eyes. They're not as interested in "truth". So, they are likely to be interested in winning an argument only to a very limited extent. They won't really engage in the ideas, but try to bludgeon their opponent into submission by calling them names and so forth."

2. Then I suggested a rule to Steve. If we were to pursue this discussion, then could he refrain from name-calling, for exactly the reason given in the post in #1:

Kelly: I have just one rule: no name-calling, like 'irrational boob'. That's not encouraging sensible argument, and inflames others' tempers as well. Best way to win an argument is not with fists, eh?

That is, it was a plea for aggressive will to push up out of "being right to please someone else", into "being truthful".

3. After that post, out of interest, I asked others here if Steve's arguing style seemed aggressive. Again, it was not a criticism. It was directly related to my point about the relationship between reasoning and aggression. Steve is expressing a certain degree of rationality, and he persists aggressively to get to a point. The two go hand-in-hand.

 

When you asked, Rainmandu (sorry about the misspelling):

Rainmandu: If I read this correctly, you're saying "turn down the aggression"?

in response to my post in #3, I didn't bother answering because John L replied:

John: I thought she meant 'turn it on, turn it on again."

which was right. Or rather "turn it up".

 

If this discussion isn't a clear indication of how persistence within an argument isn't necessarily irrational, I don't know what is. If I didn't persist here, the truth of the matter as I see it, would be suffocated.

Using a reflection of the argument here onto my own style, it is not true that the disproofs offered by others such as Steve, Andrew, Rainmandu, or John have been accurate. So it has not been irrational at all for me to persist with my exposition. I'm certainly not convinced of their arguments based on name-calling. "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an idiot, therefore your arguments are wrong" is useless. It's emotional manipulation, rather than reasoning.

I think it's worth persisting, and being patient rather than jumping to conclusions and name-calling. There is an important point here, but it won't be revealed unless one wishes to find it.

That is, rationality, or the logical process evident in a line of thinking, can be spoken of in degrees (over a period of time). A person who makes no logical errors at all, ever, is 100% rational. A person who makes many, but not all the time, might be 30% rational. And a person who uses virtually no rational processes is about 0.01% rational. And the stronger the desire to be logical, and the more aggressive the will to truth, the more rational the individual.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147571

Kelly: If this discussion isn't a clear indication of how persistence within an argument isn't necessarily irrational, I don't know what is. If I didn't persist here, the truth of the matter as I see it, would be suffocated.

OK, let's try this again. Persisting in an argument when you believe yourself to be right and want to prove your point to others -- this is fairly rational behavior. Nobody is disagreeing with you there. Reasoned debate between two sides with conflicting views, that's rational. I don't know where you got the idea that anyone here would disagree with that.

However, when one realizes that one's point is in fact *wrong*, and one continues to argue the point anyway, even aggressively, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that is distinctly IRRATIONAL behavior. It is not, as you said, slightly irrational, not even 1% and not even 0.01%. It is the complete opposite of rationality, an attempt to impose through sheer force of argumentation one's own untruth on another person. It's the complete opposite of the "search for truth" that good debate and good thinking should be.

Ed Howard

 ∞ 

Message #147589

Ed: Reasoned debate between two sides with conflicting views, that's rational. I don't know where you got the idea that anyone here would disagree with that.

Oh, only from seeing that no one is actually responding to my point, as follows from the reply to Larry:

Kelly: If we want to change the original argument, then if Person A persists *while knowing their argument is false*, then they are *only marginally* more rational than the petting mother.

Larry: ??? You lose me here. And I'm not trying to shut down this conversation, which I actually find interesting. But if person A KNOWS his argument is false and persists in defending it anyway, isn't that not only irrational but "anti-rational"?

Kelly: Your persistence with this point, in this intelligent manner, is great to see. As I keep reiterating, we're talking about levels of rationality. At least, I always have been in this discussion. ***Sticking to a false argument, that one knows is false, is not entirely irrational, because *knows* it is false. To know that, one isn't totally incapable of reasoning, otherwise there would be no pugnaciousness. It's the guilt arising from the reasoned knowledge and a deep mental resistence to that knowledge, that causes the antagonism.*** Can you see that? So, *while not 100% rational*, it still has some glimmer of reason.

If anyone wishes to address the point within *** marks, then the discussion won't be going in circles like it is now.

 

Ed: However, when one realizes that one's point is in fact *wrong*, and one continues to argue the point anyway, even aggressively, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that is distinctly IRRATIONAL behavior. It is not, as you said, slightly irrational, not even 1% and not even 0.01%. It is the complete opposite of rationality, an attempt to impose through sheer force of argumentation one's own untruth on another person. It's the complete opposite of the "search for truth" that good debate and good thinking should be.

That sheer force, assuming it comes into existence when one realises one is wrong, why is it there, do you think?

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147590

I just wanted to ask you, Edward: when you say

Edward: Persisting in an argument when you believe yourself to be right and want to prove your point to others -- this is fairly rational behavior.

do you see any form of aggressiveness in that type of 'persisting' ?

Any force, drive, attack, energy, will, etc.?

Not to confuse the two scenarios, but it relates to my original point about the relationship between persistence and the dialectical redoubling. And some would say there is an element of pugnacious pride in the latter.

Kelly

 ∞ 

 

 

Part 3. Individuality vs. Merging

 

Message #147581

Rainmandu says: If, in an earlier post, I mentioned that going outside in the rain without a hat arises from a desire to hover six inches above the ground, it wouldn't make it so. I'm not the only one rejecting your definitions, and, if you wish to communicate with other human beings, you would do well to note when your definitions are at considerable odds with the rest of the human race. By any REASONABLE definition of "aggressive," THAT is what Steve was being.

 

Kelly: When you asked, Rainmandu (sorry about the misspelling):

If I read this correctly, you're saying "turn down the aggression"?

in response to my post in #3, I didn't bother answering because John L replied:

I thought she meant 'turn it on, turn it on again."

which was right. Or rather "turn it up".

Rainmandu says: If Steve were to "turn up" his aggression, I've been elected by the rest of the human race to tell you, that would mean a whole lot more name-calling.

 

Kelly: If this discussion isn't a clear indication of how persistence within an argument isn't necessarily irrational, I don't know what is. If I didn't persist here, the truth of the matter as I see it, would be suffocated.

Rainmandu says: No. Your bold declarations of truth without a whole heck of a lot to back it up are suffocating it just fine. You're ignoring much of the history of the world in favor of propping up your thesis.

 

Kelly: Using a reflection of the argument here onto my own style, it is not true that the disproofs offered by others such as Steve, Andrew, Rainmandu, or John have been accurate. So it has not been irrational at all for me to persist with my exposition.

Rainmandu says: Unless your exposition is, itself, irrational.

 

Kelly: I'm certainly not convinced of their arguments based on name-calling. "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an idiot, therefore your arguments are wrong" is useless. It's emotional manipulation, rather than reasoning.

Rainmandu says: It's also a bit... aggressive.

 

Kelly: I think it's worth persisting, and being patient rather than jumping to conclusions and name-calling. There is an important point here, but it won't be revealed unless one wishes to find it.

Rainmandu says: Or if one (that would be you) refuses to explain it beyond sweeping generalizations and willful ignorance.

 

Kelly: That is, rationality, or the logical process evident in a line of thinking, can be spoken of in degrees (over a period of time). A person who makes no logical errors at all, ever, is 100% rational. A person who makes many, but not all the time, might be 30% rational. And a person who uses virtually no rational processes is about 0.01% rational. And the stronger the desire to be logical, and the more aggressive the will to truth, the more rational the individual.

Rainmandu says: You'll call it name-calling, but you sound like a robot.

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147582

Rainmandu: You'll call it name-calling, but you sound like a robot.

I'm just pissed because you thought of the connection with Mr. Shantz right before I did. I was going to suggest they have a nice chat, and then there was your post recommending the same thing.

John L

 ∞ 

Message #147583

Rainmandu says: If Steve were to "turn up" his aggression, I've been elected by the rest of the human race to tell you, that would mean a whole lot more name-calling.

It's true, we voted and everything. I got tired and went to bed; did we ever come to an agreement on what names she should be called by Steve?

mikebundt ;-)

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx

 ∞ 

Message #147586

mikebundt: It's true, we voted and everything. I got tired and went to bed; did we ever come to an agreement on what names she should be called by Steve?</p>

We're leaving it up to Steve. As part of a new faith-based initiative, we're having faith in Steve to come up with some good ones.

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147588

Ah, well, that's fine then. I believe in Steve.

mikebundt

 ∞ 

Message #147591

Rainmandu: If, in an earlier post, I mentioned that going outside in the rain without a hat arises from a desire to hover six inches above the ground, it wouldn't make it so.

Of course not. You'd need to provide some reasoning to support the connection. That's not hard, if one's observed a consistent relationship between things.

 

Rainmandu: I'm not the only one rejecting your definitions, and, if you wish to communicate with other human beings, you would do well to note when your definitions are at considerable odds with the rest of the human race.

If you observe something, yet everyone you encounter denies the possibility, does that mean you should forget you observed it?

Similarly, if you have only seen name-calling and slander where there is a group of people who all egg each other on, then you'd probably have good reason to associate name-calling with wanting to please someone.

 

Rainmandu: By any REASONABLE definition of "aggressive," THAT is what Steve was being.

Steve gave a good definition for aggression, after citing the dictionary, namely related to dominating (either a false solution or others). I agree with that association.

 

Kelly: When a person wants to please someone else, and get their approval, they are more interested in "being right" in that person's eyes. They're not as interested in "truth". So, they are likely to be interested in winning an argument only to a very limited extent. They won't really engage in the ideas, but try to bludgeon their opponent into submission by calling them names and so forth."

So, you do see that I gave my reasoning.

Perhaps you have a response to this?

 

Kelly: 2. Then I suggested a rule to Steve. If we were to pursue this discussion, then could he refrain from name-calling, for exactly the reason given in the post in #1:

I have just one rule: no name-calling, like 'irrational boob'. That's not encouraging sensible argument, and inflames others' tempers as well. Best way to win an argument is not with fists, eh?

That is, it was a plea for aggressive will to push up out of "being right to please someone else", into "being truthful".

And here again, I provided reasoning. So I don't see why you think I'm just pulling things out of thin air.

 

Kelly: 3. After that post, out of interest, I asked others here if Steve's arguing style seemed aggressive. Again, it was not a criticism. It was directly related to my point about the relationship between reasoning and aggression. Steve is expressing a certain degree of rationality, and he persists aggressively to get to a point. The two go hand-in-hand.

You didn't respond to this, so I assume you agree.

 

Rainmandu: If Steve were to "turn up" his aggression, I've been elected by the rest of the human race to tell you, that would mean a whole lot more name-calling.

Not if he turned the dominating force against false solutions.

Then he would be interested in getting to the truth of the matter, and not getting some pats on the back from his buddies in the Cerebus fan-group.

 

Kelly: If this discussion isn't a clear indication of how persistence within an argument isn't necessarily irrational, I don't know what is. If I didn't persist here, the truth of the matter as I see it, would be suffocated.

Rainmandu: No. Your bold declarations of truth without a whole heck of a lot to back it up are suffocating it just fine. You're ignoring much of the history of the world in favor of propping up your thesis.

What?

Were you sober when you posted that?

 

Kelly: Using a reflection of the argument here onto my own style, it is not true that the disproofs offered by others such as Steve, Andrew, Rainmandu, or John have been accurate. So it has not been irrational at all for me to persist with my exposition.

Rainmandu: Unless your exposition is, itself, irrational.

Please provide reasoning to back up your statements, or there is no reason for anyone with self-respect to pay them attention.

 

Kelly: I'm certainly not convinced of their arguments based on name-calling. "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an idiot, therefore your arguments are wrong" is useless. It's emotional manipulation, rather than reasoning.

Rainmandu: It's also a bit... aggressive.

Yes, it is. Though, nowhere near as aggressive as reasoning in terms of uncovering truths and destroying falsehoods.

 

Kelly: I think it's worth persisting, and being patient rather than jumping to conclusions and name-calling. There is an important point here, but it won't be revealed unless one wishes to find it.

Rainmandu: Or if one (that would be you) refuses to explain it beyond sweeping generalizations and willful ignorance.

I haven't made any sweeping generalisations that aren't backed up by reasoning, and one need only examine my writing for the evidence.

 

Rainmandu: You'll call it name-calling, but you sound like a robot.

Reasoning *is* robotic. A=A. Not-A = not-A.

And the more conscious a person is, the less they need to hear things repeated in order to absorb them.

I don't think you're totally thick, so I'm not repeating myself here. ;-)

Kelly

Message #147595

For what it's worth, the position of "devil's advocate"--that is, arguing in favor of something you don't necessarily believe to be true in order to bring out the full scope of the opposing argument--has long been a tool of rational discourse.

between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99

Dustin Long

Message #147625

Rainmandu: If, in an earlier post, I mentioned that going outside in the rain without a hat arises from a desire to hover six inches above the ground, it wouldn't make it so.

Kelly: Of course not. You'd need to provide some reasoning to support the connection. That's not hard, if one's observed a consistent relationship between things.

Every week, I see my neighbors take these large cans out to the curb. A big truck comes by and men take away the contents of these cans. Every day (except for Sunday), a man comes by and leaves things in the boxes attached to these people's homes. Based on my observation, I suspect that what is left in the cans is payment for what is deposited in the boxes. I suspect that these men (the ones who take and the ones who deliver) are in some way connected, because the dogs in the neighborhood bark at all of these men in the same way. I trust you observe what I'm saying about observation here.

 

Rainmandu: I'm not the only one rejecting your definitions, and, if you wish to communicate with other human beings, you would do well to note when your definitions are at considerable odds with the rest of the human race.

Kelly: If you observe something, yet everyone you encounter denies the possibility, does that mean you should forget you observed it?

We're not arguing (right here) about what you've observed and what others have not observed. We're arguing definitions. You're using definitions that no one else uses or understands.

 

Kelly: Similarly, if you have only seen name-calling and slander where there is a group of people who all egg each other on, then you'd probably have good reason to associate name-calling with wanting to please someone.

This is me rejecting your claim that name-called is indicative of a desire to please others.

 

Rainmandu: By any REASONABLE definition of "aggressive," THAT is what Steve was being.

Kelly: Steve gave a good definition for aggression, after citing the dictionary, namely related to dominating (either a false solution or others). I agree with that association.

[No reply.]

 

Kelly: When a person wants to please someone else, and get their approval, they are more interested in "being right" in that person's eyes. They're not as interested in "truth". So, they are likely to be interested in winning an argument only to a very limited extent. They won't really engage in the ideas, but try to bludgeon their opponent into submission by calling them names and so forth."

So, you do see that I gave my reasoning.

Perhaps you have a response to this?

And that sounds rational to you?

 

Kelly: 2. Then I suggested a rule to Steve. If we were to pursue this discussion, then could he refrain from name-calling, for exactly the reason given in the post in #1: "I have just one rule: no name-calling, like 'irrational boob'. That's not encouraging sensible argument, and inflames others' tempers as well. Best way to win an argument is not with fists, eh?" That is, it was a plea for aggressive will to push up out of "being right to please someone else", into "being truthful".

And here again, I provided reasoning. So I don't see why you think I'm just pulling things out of thin air.

I was referring to your "take" on gender, etc.

 

3. After that post, out of interest, I asked others here if Steve's arguing style seemed aggressive. Again, it was not a criticism. It was directly related to my point about the relationship between reasoning and aggression. Steve is expressing a certain degree of rationality, and he persists aggressively to get to a point. The two go hand-in-hand.

You didn't respond to this, so I assume you agree.

No, I just addresed it in a different part of my response and didn't feel like repeating myself.

 

Rainmandu: If Steve were to "turn up" his aggression, I've been elected by the rest of the human race to tell you, that would mean a whole lot more name-calling.

Kelly: Not if he turned the dominating force against false solutions. Then he would be interested in getting to the truth of the matter, and not getting some pats on the back from his buddies in the Cerebus fan-group.

Hey, Steve? Were you trying to get some pats on the back? While we wait for his response, I'll say that I don't think he was.

 

Kelly: If this discussion isn't a clear indication of how persistence within an argument isn't necessarily irrational, I don't know what is. If I didn't persist here, the truth of the matter as I see it, would be suffocated.

Rainmandu: No. Your bold declarations of truth without a whole heck of a lot to back it up are suffocating it just fine. You're ignoring much of the history of the world in favor of propping up your thesis.

Kelly: What? Were you sober when you posted that?

If I had been drunk, I would have been trying to squeeze as many "Arrested Development" references into my posts as possible. Since I'm wasn't doing that, it stands to reason that I was sober.

 

Kelly: Using a reflection of the argument here onto my own style, it is not true that the disproofs offered by others such as Steve, Andrew, Rainmandu, or John have been accurate. So it has not been irrational at all for me to persist with my exposition.

Rainmandu: Unless your exposition is, itself, irrational.

Kelly: Please provide reasoning to back up your statements, or there is no reason for anyone with self-respect to pay them attention.

Right back at ya, with regards to gender.

 

Kelly: I haven't made any sweeping generalisations that aren't backed up by reasoning, and one need only examine my writing for the evidence.

Gender, gender, gender.

 

Rainmandu: You'll call it name-calling, but you sound like a robot.

Kelly: Reasoning *is* robotic. A=A. Not-A = not-A.

Yes, but the world is not robotic. It's more complicated than that. Look at Chris trying to argue about the writer-centric world of the bookstore. His argument is based on what he considers to be reasonable. He's entirely wrong. Because what sounds reasonable isn't always reality.

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147632

Raimundu,

Rainmandu: I suspect that these men (the ones who take and the ones who deliver) are in some way connected, because the dogs in the neighborhood bark at all of these men in the same way. I trust you observe what I'm saying about observation here.

I think you're pointing to how uncertain the causal relationships between finite things are.

This is true.

It is also true that enlightenment increases consciousness. This is the point of this entire discussion, so far as I'm concerned.

An enlightened person sees and therefore can make more reasonable connections.

Regardless of this, argumentum ad hominem basically means, name-calling is not a logical way to disprove arguments.

 

Rainmandu: You're using definitions that no one else uses or understands.

Not true. Also, any thinking person could understand my definitions without too much effort.

Aggressiveness is about using force to enact one's will. It's the will to power. One might desire power over falsehoods or power over others.

 

Kelly: When a person wants to please someone else, and get their approval, they are more interested in "being right" in that person's eyes. They're not as interested in "truth". So, they are likely to be interested in winning an argument only to a very limited extent. They won't really engage in the ideas, but try to bludgeon their opponent into submission by calling them names and so forth."

So, you do see that I gave my reasoning. Perhaps you have a response to this?

Rainmandu: And that sounds rational to you?

Yes.

 

Rainmandu: You're ignoring much of the history of the world in favor of propping up your thesis.

If you are referring to my views on women, then what is commonly known in human history does support it:

Women are generally more irrational than men, because their behaviour and speech reveals much less consistency, reflection, purposefulness, or coherency, than men's generally does. There are exceptions, but the rule is still broadly useful.

Human civilisation is the product of thinking. Women as a rule have not produced anything. Here's a cartoon you might like:

 

 

05_thought_winsormcCay.jpg

by Winsor McCay

 

 

Kelly: I haven't made any sweeping generalisations that aren't backed up by reasoning, and one need only examine my writing for the evidence.

Rainmandu: Gender, gender, gender.

Good argument.

You may be trying to play devil's advocate. But if so, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Think about it.

 

Kelly: Reasoning *is* robotic. A=A. Not-A = not-A.

Rainmandu: Yes, but the world is not robotic. It's more complicated than that.

If the world is complicated, then the world is complicated. A=A.

 

Rainmandu: Look at Chris trying to argue about the writer-centric world of the bookstore. His argument is based on what he considers to be reasonable. He's entirely wrong. Because what sounds reasonable isn't always reality.

Only reasoning helps one tell the difference between certainties and uncertainties, and therefore what is ultimately real.

Causal relationships between finite things are not certain, because finite things are themselves not inherently existing, because they are caused.

Kelly

Message #147624

Kelly: If anyone wishes to address the point within *** marks, then the discussion won't be going in circles like it is now.

Okay, let me take a stab at making sense of what you're saying here. Say that Rain is in debate class. There he is, sitting at his desk, so young, so optimistic, so horny. Rain has been assigned the task of taking the podium opposite [name deleted] to argue the anti-choice side of the abortion debate. Rain knows that the argument he is making is wrong. But Rain persists. In those circumstances, Rain is not being irrational. He's just trying to get an "A." Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say that arguing a position you know to be wrong is not, in itself, irrational? That the argument has value, and that sort of thing?

 

Kelly: That sheer force, assuming it comes into existence when one realises one is wrong, why is it there, do you think?

Embarrassment? Emasculation (if one is male)? Efemulation (if one is female - and likes to make up words)?

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147633

Rainmandu: Rain knows that the argument he is making is wrong. But Rain persists. In those circumstances, Rain is not being irrational. He's just trying to get an "A." Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say that arguing a position you know to be wrong is not, in itself, irrational? That the argument has value, and that sort of thing?

No, but good try.

The person who argues something that they *know* to be false by that definition cannot justify their persistence - hence the desire to argue by sheer force. Their persistence is not because they believe their point is correct, but because of, as Steve says, wanting to be right.

 

Ed: However, when one realizes that one's point is in fact *wrong*, and one continues to argue the point anyway, even aggressively, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that is distinctly IRRATIONAL behavior. It is not, as you said, slightly irrational, not even 1% and not even 0.01%. It is the complete opposite of rationality, an attempt to impose through sheer force of argumentation one's own untruth on another person. It's the complete opposite of the "search for truth" that good debate and good thinking should be.

Kelly: That sheer force, assuming it comes into existence when one realises one is wrong, why is it there, do you think?

Rainmandu: Embarrassment? Emasculation (if one is male)? Efemulation (if one is female - and likes to make up words)?

Yes. Embarrassment. Wanting to look good in another's eyes, or at the very least (or most) in one's own eyes.

So now the question is: how much reasoning goes on in that person's head, *compared to* the person treating a pet like a baby?

1%? 100% 1000%?

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147609

Anybody else reminded of a skit that begins, "I'd like to have an argument"?

John L

 ∞ 

Message #147610

I disagree. I am reminded of no such skit.

;-) Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147611

John: Anybody else reminded of a skit that begins, "I'd like to have an argument"?

You have to admit, it's like Ryan trying to have a face-to-face conversation with a family of cousins in Deepwater, Kentucky.

TTM heh (Rick Sharer)

 ∞ 

Message #147634

John: Anybody else reminded of a skit that begins, "I'd like to have an argument"?

I'm just refuting Steve's original point that men and women generally express the same degree of irrationality, because it is untrue.

Men who intensify their aggressiveness, and dominate falsehood, not other people, have a good chance of finding Truth.

By contrast, the average woman lacks the basic seed of aggression, and so has roughly zilch capacity for Truth-consciousness.

"It is up to each individual Male in whom the creative fire burns, in the words of Pater, 'as a hard, gem-like flame' to decide whether to maintain that radiance, whether to settle for a wavery, uncertain light, or whether to extinguish it altogether. The individual Male decides for himself which side in the ancient battle is the better armed, who gets the best reinforcements, the most effective weapons, whose barricades are solid and well-fortified, and whose are makeshift and ramshackle."

— Dave Sim

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147638

"No, I'm sorry, this is getting hit on the head lessons." ------ Terry Jones(no relation I hope)

John L

 ∞ 

Message #147640

Last week I invented a Cerebus fan, Gordon Munro, to hit me on the head. Authentic, do you think?

http://www.philosophecafe.yuku.com
 
[ See READS ]

Hopefully, I thought, this should entertain my local philosophy group enough to overcome any distaste for the topic.

Maybe I did it too well, but you can't say I don't have a sense of humour! It's just rather subtle.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147642

Okay, lemme guess - you define 'subtle' as 'nonexistant', right?

John L

 ∞ 

Message #147674

"Confuse Karma; stand quite still and think of nothing." - Fifth Tenet of the Cosmic Veil, Cloistered Order of the Goddess Uncaring

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147673

Margaret: Well, reading your comment on your site about issue 186: "And therefore, the 'Male Heart and Groin' is a falsehood of Sim's: having any sexual desire is not compatible with Male Light. It destroys others, and it destroys oneself." I would point you towards his series of essays entitled Tangent. From Tangent #1 (published in Cerebus #265):

This dovetailed with the "second source" in answering "Where do you think your ideas about women come from?": my own decision to alternate periods of intentional celibacy (as opposed to "not getting laid") with periods of monogamous sexual activity and semi-monogamous sexual activity. Having gone back and forth between the two states over the course of a decade, I can state unequivocally that celibate Dave Sim sees reality more clearly than sexually-active Dave Sim (who wilfully hypnotized himself into seeing the world in a manifestly untrue way and persuaded himself that feminist lies were true, that many feminist lies contained elements of truth, that feminist lies were not wholly untruthful). Surrendering an accurate perception of reality for a world of fairy-tale falsehoods was part of the high price of sex, a price I was no longer prepared to pay.

 

Sorry, I missed your comment, Margaret. Just found it on compiling the discussion for my website.

It's excellent, thanks. I think I've read it somewhere before somewhere, maybe on the Genius Forum.

I note it comes after issue 186.

It's odd that although he realised that sexual desire distorted his own ability to think clearly, and to see reality for what it is, he didn't note that sexual desire for women *creates them as Emotional Voids*.

A simple connection to make....

Anyway, for those interested, the discussion is uploaded here:

http://www.naturalthinker.net/letters/cerebus.html
 
[ Letters to a Young Man ]

(not quite finished, but soon).

Thanks for the discussions, folks. I'll leave it there. Might return after studying Tangent and Islam, My Islam.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147676

Kelly: Anyway, for those interested, the discussion is uploaded here: Letters to a Young Man (not quite finished, but soon).

You might want to make this correction then. You state: " The author, Dave Sim, brought things to a head in Issue 186 by speaking in the first person, and including no comic strip at all." Which isn't true. In issue 186 there is 15 pages of text yes, but also 5 pages of "comic strip".

You also state this: "in my view, the highlight and greatest achievement in the whole Cerebus strip." But I don't remember you saying that you had read the entire Cerebus series or not?

 

Kelly: The mental blocks erected by the fans to avoid confronting their buddy-buddying behaviour, and to preserve their group disapproval of Sim's views on women, strangely went totally unnoticed by them.

Umm.

 

Kelly: So, Sim's greatest achievement is typically believed to lie in his contributions to the comic-book industry, ie. as an artist and not as a thinker.

Umm.

 

Kelly: I hold Sim responsible for cursing himself with that reputation, for he allows the fan club to exist as it does.

Umm.

Yeah, see. . . for the all the time I've been on this list (lets see, just under 8 years), we: 1. have challenged each other (and Dave) on our own thoughts about various subjects, including Dave's believes on women, 2. praised Dave's accomplishments for helping to shape us into the people we are today, part of which is Dave's being a "thinker" as well as an artist and 3. know that we don't needs Dave's approval to exist as a "fan club" in any form: he isn't our King, and we aren't our his pawns. One of the things I've learned from Dave is to think for myself and challenge whatever someone else might tell me is "true", true or even Truth to them, be that come from Dave, the government or Rick. heh.

I'd link to examples of the above, but you've got access to the message archives, feel free to peruse all 147,675 messages made to the group. We'll still be here, discussing our opinions on everything from Star Wars to the meaning of Truth to anal sex while you catch up.

 

Kelly: Thanks for the discussions, folks. I'll leave it there. Might return after studying Tangent and Islam, My Islam.

Enjoy. You should pick up Collected Letters 2004 and Collected Letters 2 also. As the title implies, they collect Dave's letters to his "fans" and other letter writers for parts of 2004. Interesting stuff that covers a wide range of topics.

You really ought to write Dave and tell him of your thoughts on issue 186 and this "fan club" as we exist today. I'd be interested in reading his response.

Take care,
Margaret

 ∞ 

Message #147677

I have a few things I want to add:

Sim is attached to comics, which is probably his biggest flaw. His greatest achievement may be Cerebus issue #186; Kevin Solway told me he was impressed that Sim didn't wait until the last issue to say what he said there. I haven't fully digested the later writings, though, so this view is tentative.

Greg Shantz

 ∞ 

Message #147678

Hi Margaret,

Thanks for the feedback.

Margaret: You might want to make this correction then. You state: "The author, Dave Sim, brought things to a head in Issue 186 by speaking in the first person, and including no comic strip at all." *Which isn't true. In issue 186 there is 15 pages of text yes, but also 5 pages of "comic strip".

Ok. I'd taken it from READS. I assumed the pictures come at the end of each issue, as READS starts with text. There aren't any obvious bits like Issue ---.

The floating-out into the Infinite seemed a continuation of the previous run of cartoons where earth falls away from the two pugilists.

 

Margaret: You also state this: "in my view, the highlight and greatest achievement in the whole Cerebus strip." But I don't remember you saying that you had read the entire Cerebus series or not?

I haven't. As Dave worships Allah, I figured that the highest he ever went was a rejection of the Emotional Void.

There is only one thing greater than the rejection of the Emotional Void, in my view.

Taking reason all the way, and uncovering the Infinite.

The two are very closely related: to take reason all the way, one must reject attachment to unreason.

 

Kelly: "The mental blocks erected by the fans to avoid confronting their buddy-buddying behaviour, and to preserve their group disapproval of Sim's views on women, strangely went totally unnoticed by them."

Margaret: Umm.

We'd never gotten around to discussing rationality itself.

It seems to me that "rational" means "what the majority holds to be true", to folk like Steve, Andrew, Edward, etc.

So, where they present their view, they simply make claims, with minimal reasoning. Then they repeat the claim. It's as if they believe the common view of things stands to reason on its own terms.

Where I present my independently-reasoned views, they amount to "pet theories" or "irrational" simply because they are not commonplace.

I don't think they even know what reasoning means:
- to *start* with a goal (truth),
- to create a definition,
- to test the validity of the definition,
- to decide whether it's a scientific or a logical definition,
- to rely on empirical evidence (observations) or on deduction to come to some conclusion, depending on what sort of definition it is.

 

Kelly: So, Sim's greatest achievement is typically believed to lie in his contributions to the comic-book industry, ie. as an artist — and not as a thinker.

Margaret: Umm.

Andrew Korn made this exact point. The spirit of the point appeared in many other posts.

 

Kelly: I hold Sim responsible for cursing himself with that reputation, for he allows the fan club to exist as it does.

Margaret: Umm. Yeah, see. . . for the all the time I've been on this list (lets see, just under 8 years ), we: 1. have challenged each other (and Dave) on our own thoughts about various subjects, including Dave's believes on women,

Mostly the latter, I presume? Been any serious challenges of your own beliefs on women? How many of you are married or in sexual/emotional relationships with Emotional Voids?

 

Margaret: 2. praised Dave's accomplishments for helping to shape us into the people we are today,

Shame on him.

 

Margaret: part of which is Dave's being a "thinker" as well as an artist and

Inverted commas, eh?

 

Margaret: 3. know that we don't needs Dave's approval to exist as a "fan club" in any form: he isn't our King, and we aren't our his pawns.

Say Dave enters into regular discussions here, with one aim: to promote the Male Light (reason and thinking), and to use it as the tool to promote wisdom. As soon as he does that, rejecting art in favour of wisdom, I'd bet you a million dollars the purpose and nature of this group would change.

 

Margaret: One of the things I've learned from Dave is to think for myself and challenge whatever someone else might tell me is "true", true or even Truth to them, be that come from Dave, the government or Rick. heh.

I noticed that even Larry, one of the stronger Male Lights in this group, put inverted commas around the word truth too. That was in Message 147445.

Interesting.

What does that tell you?

 

Margaret: I'd link to examples of the above, but you've got access to the message archives, feel free to peruse all 147,675 messages made to the group. We'll still be here, discussing our opinions on everything from Star Wars to the meaning of Truth to anal sex while you catch up.

What is the meaning of Truth, Margaret?

 

Kelly: Thanks for the discussions, folks. I'll leave it there. Might return after studying Tangent and Islam, My Islam.

Margaret: Enjoy. You should pick up Collected Letters 2004 and Collected Letters 2 also. As the title implies, they collect Dave's letters to his "fans" and other letter writers for parts of 2004. Interesting stuff that covers a wide range of topics.

Ok.

 

Margaret: You really ought to write Dave and tell him of your thoughts on issue 186 and this "fan club" as we exist today. I'd be interested in reading his response.

I might just do that.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147680

Kelly: There is only one thing greater than the rejection of the Emotional Void, in my view. Taking reason all the way, and uncovering the Infinite. The two are very closely related: to take reason all the way, one must reject attachment to unreason.

Or take a ton of mushrooms, a couple massive bong hits. You'll be well on your way to uncovering the Infinite. It'll probably involve Rush and Led Zeppelin. That should come as a bit of a shock.

 

Kelly: "The mental blocks erected by the fans to avoid confronting their buddy-buddying behaviour, and to preserve their group disapproval of Sim's views on women, strangely went totally unnoticed by them."

Margaret: Umm.

Kelly: We'd never gotten around to discussing rationality itself. It seems to me that "rational" means "what the majority holds to be true", to folk like Steve, Andrew, Edward, etc.

Uh, no. Seriously, you're treeing up the wrong bark if you think that THIS group is like THAT. But nice try. More than one person thinks you're being irrational, and you turn it into a "consensus" attacking your "exception." In this case it MIGHT mean that you're not being as rational as you think you are.

 

Kelly: So, where they present their view, they simply make claims, with minimal reasoning. Then they repeat the claim. It's as if they believe the common view of things stands to reason on its own terms.

Or the debate has long since been exhausted, and you're not presenting anything new. Just old "women are like this" and "women have never done this" nonsense, ignoring the historical context in which women have existed. I suspect you wouldn't recognize the fallacy in the statement "there are no living female authors who are as good as their male contemporaries."

 

Kelly: Where I present my independently-reasoned views, they amount to "pet theories" or "irrational" simply because they are not commonplace.

You're getting a bit defensive there.

 

Kelly: I hold Sim responsible for cursing himself with that reputation, for he allows the fan club to exist as it does.

Margaret: Umm. Yeah, see. . . for the all the time I've been on this list (lets see, just under 8 years, we: 1. have challenged each other (and Dave) on our own thoughts about various subjects, including Dave's believes on women,

Kelly: Mostly the latter, I presume? Been any serious challenges of your own beliefs on women?

Yes.

 

Kelly: How many of you are married or in sexual/emotional relationships with Emotional Voids?

Do you believe that all woman, or nearly all women, are emotional voids? Many ways (for us, here, with our experience with Dave's writing) to take that question.

 

Margaret: 2. praised Dave's accomplishments for helping to shape us into the people we are today,

Kelly: Shame on him.

How rude.

 

Margaret: 3. know that we don't needs Dave's approval to exist as a "fan club" in any form: he isn't our King, and we aren't our his pawns.

Kelly: Say Dave enters into regular discussions here, with one aim: to promote the Male Light (reason and thinking), and to use it as the tool to promote wisdom. As soon as he does that, rejecting art in favour of wisdom, I'd bet you a million dollars the purpose and nature of this group would change.

What do you think it would change into?

 

Margaret: One of the things I've learned from Dave is to think for myself and challenge whatever someone else might tell me is "true", true or even Truth to them, be that come from Dave, the government or Rick. heh.

Kelly: I noticed that even Larry, one of the stronger Male Lights in this group, put inverted commas around the word truth too. That was in Message 147445. Interesting. What does that tell you?

It tells me that Larry put quotes around the word "truth." What does it tell YOU? Depending on the context, there SHOULD be quotes are the word "truth."

 

Margaret: I'd link to examples of the above, but you've got access to the message archives, feel free to peruse all 147,675 messages made to the group. We'll still be here, discussing our opinions on everything from Star Wars to the meaning of Truth to anal sex while you catch up.

Kelly: What is the meaning of Truth, Margaret?

It'th when two groupth dethide to work out there differenthes.

Rainmandu

 ∞ 

Message #147686

Rainmandu,

Rainmandu: Or take a ton of mushrooms, a couple massive bong hits. You'll be well on your way to uncovering the Infinite. It'll probably involve Rush and Led Zeppelin. That should come as a bit of a shock.

Altered states of consciousness can help open the mind to insights about the boundary-lessness of the Infinite. It can be very freeing to realise Reality is far more mental than physical. But such realisations are really only at a beginner-level. One must not stagnate in those early stages, for they don't present the full picture.

Reasoning is vital to see mind-altering experiences as what they are - ego-empowering.

 

Rainmandu: More than one person thinks you're being irrational, and you turn it into a "consensus" attacking your "exception." In this case it MIGHT mean that you're not being as rational as you think you are.

I acknowledge that you made an effort, Rainmandu.

But I cannot see any response to my last post to you. Any decent thinker would be asking themselves, "What is embarrassment? Why does a person want to look good in someone else's eyes, or in their own? What are they thinking? Is pride irrational? Is emotion irrational, and if so, why? Is there any emotion that has more reasoning processes than another emotion?" --- Instead, there's deathly silence in this group, as if such questions are futile and painful.

Thinking is the path to freedom and understanding. If thinking is taking you in futile circles, then you aren't thinking.

 

Rainmandu: Just old "women are like this" and "women have never done this" nonsense, ignoring the historical context in which women have existed.

Women have not been oppressed by a Patriarchy. They have been the primary beneficiaries. Society has been set up to protect women and children.

 

Rainmandu: I suspect you wouldn't recognize the fallacy in the statement "there are no living female authors who are as good as their male contemporaries."

Women are as good as ever in talking, but as poor as ever in having any meaningful point to make.

 

Rainmandu: Do you believe that all woman, or nearly all women, are emotional voids?

All biological females are more likely to be Merged Emotional Voids (aimless desire) than to be Male Lights (thinkers, reasoners).

 

Margaret: 2. we praised Dave's accomplishments for helping to shape us into the people we are today,

Kelly: Shame on him.

Rainmandu: How rude.

It's deeply compassionate of me, actually. It's evil to encourage others to use their wits to fuck people over.

 

Kelly: Say Dave enters into regular discussions here, with one aim: to promote the Male Light (reason and thinking), and to use it as the tool to promote wisdom. As soon as he does that, rejecting art in favour of wisdom, I'd bet you a million dollars the purpose and nature of this group would change.

Rainmandu: What do you think it would change into?

The comics addiction would be the first out the window.

 

Rainmandu: Depending on the context, there SHOULD be quotes are the word "truth."

Do you think there is any such thing as an absolute truth, Rainmandu?

 

Kelly: What is the meaning of Truth, Margaret?

Rainmandu: It'th when two groupth dethide to work out there differenthes.

Joking aside, is truth dependent on a situation or a perspective?

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147681

Kelly: As Dave worships Allah, I figured that the highest he ever went was a rejection of the Emotional Void.

*God*, not Allah. Dave made a whole thing of saying how much he objects to people using the term Allah when speaking/writing inEnglish.

 

Kelly: There is only one thing greater than the rejection of the Emotional Void, in my view. Taking reason all the way, and uncovering the Infinite.

Ah, but what about Buzz Lightyear -to Infinity, and beyond!

;-)

 

Kelly: The two are very closely related: to take reason all the way, one must reject attachment to unreason.

[No reply.]

 

Kelly: "The mental blocks erected by the fans to avoid confronting their buddy-buddying behaviour, and to preserve their group disapproval of Sim's views on women, strangely went totally unnoticed by them."

Margaret: Umm.

Kelly: We'd never gotten around to discussing rationality itself. It seems to me that "rational" means "what the majority holds to be true", to folk like Steve, Andrew, Edward, etc.

Bollocks. I have disagreed with many individuals here, but they certainly have a far more rigorous understanding of reason that your sophistry and passion for the transcendant Infinite.

 

Kelly: So, where they present their view, they simply make claims, with minimal reasoning. Then they repeat the claim. It's as if they believe the common view of things stands to reason on its own terms. Where I present my independently-reasoned views, they amount to "pet theories" or "irrational" simply because they are not commonplace. I don't think they even know what reasoning means:
- to *start* with a goal (truth),
- to create a definition,
- to test the validity of the definition,
- to decide whether it's a scientific or a logical definition,
- to rely on empirical evidence (observations) or on deduction to come to some conclusion, depending on what sort of definition it is.

[No reply.]

 

Kelly: So, Sim's greatest achievement is typically believed to lie in his contributions to the comic-book industry, ie. as an artist — and not as a thinker.

Margaret: Umm.

Kelly: Andrew Korn made this exact point. The spirit of the point appeared in many other posts.

[No reply.]

 

Kelly: I hold Sim responsible for cursing himself with that reputation, for he allows the fan club to exist as it does.

Margaret: Umm. Yeah, see. . . for the all the time I've been on this list (lets see, just under 8 years, we: 1. have challenged each other (and Dave) on our own thoughts about various subjects, including Dave's believes on women,

Kelly: Mostly the latter, I presume? Been any serious challenges of your own beliefs on women? How many of you are married or in sexual/emotional relationships with Emotional Voids?

I was into Reads when I was in school and purposefully avoided all women as they were *probably* emotional voids. I still agree with the old Dave on pornography being better than entering into a relationship with someone who gets half your stuff an decides when you get laid.

 

Margaret: 2. praised Dave's accomplishments for helping to shape us into the people we are today,

Kelly: Shame on him.

[No reply].

 

Margaret: part of which is Dave's being a "thinker" as well as an artist and

Kelly: Inverted commas, eh?

In fairness, individuals like Andrew H have explained the flaws in Dave's thought processes that would warrant such distancing.

 

Margaret: 3. know that we don't needs Dave's approval to exist as a "fan club" in any form: he isn't our King, and we aren't our his pawns.

Kelly: Say Dave enters into regular discussions here, with one aim: to promote the Male Light (reason and thinking), and to use it as the tool to promote wisdom. As soon as he does that, rejecting art in favour of wisdom, I'd bet you a million dollars the purpose and nature of this group would change.

[No reply.]

 

Margaret: One of the things I've learned from Dave is to think for myself and challenge whatever someone else might tell me is "true", true or even Truth to them, be that come from Dave, the government or Rick. heh.

Kelly: I noticed that even Larry, one of the stronger Male Lights in this group, put inverted commas around the word truth too. That was in Message 147445. Interesting. What does that tell you?

Given the overlap between the Male Light and being a strong, dominant husband (which exists despite your distaste for Dave's monotheism) I'd say Billy and Rick are the strongest Male Lights. Or what about me? I probably get less pussy than your buddy Greg (ok, that's an exaggeration ;-) ).

 

Margaret: I'd link to examples of the above, but you've got access to the message archives, feel free to peruse all 147,675 messages made to the group. We'll still be here, discussing our opinions on everything from Star Wars to the meaning of Truth to anal sex while you catch up.

Kelly: What is the meaning of Truth, Margaret?

Star Wars and anal sex. She just told you!

;-)
Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147687
(I cheekily titled it: 'OT: The Male Light (thinking and reason) Vs. The Emotional Void (aimless desire)' )

Ryan,

Ryan: I have disagreed with many individuals here, but they certainly have a far more rigorous understanding of reason that your sophistry and passion for the transcendant Infinite.

You've no idea what I mean by Infinite.

The Infinite is *not-finite*, so it is everywhere, and everything. How can everything be transcendant? What would it transcend?

 

Kelly: I noticed that even Larry, one of the stronger Male Lights in this group, put inverted commas around the word truth too. That was in Message 147445. Interesting. What does that tell you?

Ryan: Given the overlap between the Male Light and being a strong, dominant husband (which exists despite your distaste for Dave's monotheism) I'd say Billy and Rick are the strongest Male Lights. Or what about me? I probably get less pussy than your buddy Greg (ok, that's an exaggeration ;-) ).

Since you sound sorry that you don't get more pussy, I'd say you're sliding into the Emotional Void.

 

This by Sim is brilliant, in my view:

I have not had a Merged Permanence in my life for five years. It took at least three of those five years for my brain to start functioning properly again. In the aftermath of being part of a Merged Void, all that is left for some time is Void Residue: Emptiness, Fear and Emotional Hunger. It is these three and the endless, fruitless search for a Permanent Cure that the Emotional Female Void calls Love. If you merge with that sensibility, you will share in its sickness. No matter what you pour into it, it remains empty; no matter how you reassure it, it remains afraid; no matter how much of yourself you permit it to devour, it remains hungry. If you look at her and see anything besides emptiness, fear and emotional hunger, you are looking at the parts of yourself which have been consumed to that point.

The ability to be alone, to have isolation as your primary state of existence, will serve you in good stead in any situation in which you find yourself. The ability to live in Merged Permanence teaches you only how to function within the context of Another's neuroses, inadequacies and failings. It teaches you how to use your own neuroses, inadequacies and failings as both cudgel and petition. When the Merged Permanence ends, whether next week, next year, five years from now, ten years from now, you are left with completely useless life skills, emptiness, fear and emotional hunger.

Kelly

 ∞ 

Message #147682

Kelly: Dave Sim's 'Tangents' can be found on Kevin Solway's 'Misogyny Unlimited' webpage, along with a section of 'READS'. It is here: http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/

Sim says there:

"there is, perhaps, some small feminist consolation to be had from the fact that, with the completion of "Tangent," I intend to "have done" with the subject of gender and gender "issues" entirely: in much the same way that The Cerebus Guide to Self-Publishing constituted my "hail and farewell" to the subject of self-publishing. As with the Guide, "Tangent" represents a summing up of my conclusions about a subject which has occupied my attentions for a period of time and which I have resolved for myself in my own way and to my own satisfaction (and which I am now pleased to put behind me so that I can pursue other areas of interest to me)."

This indicates Sim only dipped the edge of his little toe into the water. If a person realises the diametrical opposition between the psychology of Woman, and that of Man, and then they say they "put it behind them to pursue other areas of interest", that definitely means they fled screaming in the opposite direction. Hence Islam, another form of worshipping Woman (delusion, unreason, safety in numbers).

Islam is a form of worshipping women?! Dave cited lots of passages from it that accord with his circa-Reads view of women (e.g. the "Cow" sura with the passage on male superiority); if anything is an intensification of "misogyny" by citing the ultimate authority - God- as validating Dave's gender views. Isn't the existence of differing psychologies between men and women the stuff *of* psychology, which you haven't (although I am aware of studies indicating gognitive differences between the genders)exactly referred to.

Ryan

 ∞ 

Message #147689

Ryan: Islam is a form of worshipping women?! Dave cited lots of passages from it that accord with his circa-Reads view of women (e.g. the "Cow" sura with the passage on male superiority); if anything is an intensification of "misogyny" by citing the ultimate authority - God - as validating Dave's gender views.

Ha, ha.

Seriously though, if there is an ego, then there is generally more masculinity (consciousness of self) than femininity. However, as soon as there's an ego, there's a deep insecurity about the self. That creates the need for a Big Other. Namely, an eternal, personal creator-God, in whatever shape it might take.

By contrast, the ultra-masculine individual is able to reason that all things are causally created, and, recognising the lack of inherent existence of things, is able to undermine belief in the ego.

So the greatest misogynist is also a misandrist....

 

Ryan: Isn't the existence of differing psychologies between men and women the stuff *of* psychology, which you haven't (although I am aware of studies indicating gognitive differences between the genders)exactly referred to.

Yes, the differences between masculine and feminine psychologies is the vital stuff of psychology.

It's all that I've been trying to explain over the last few days. Women generally do not employ reasoning processes to near the level of even the least rational man (generally). They don't have the aggression. It's greatly biological, but partly learnt.

I can't go into it much more in the next few days, but can pick up the conversation in a month when I'm back in Tasmania.

Kelly

 

 

 ∞ Back to Top ∞ 


return.JPG