The secret of the jerk by Pook (Long!)

Post Reply New Topic

I find it strange that the thing I consider most precious to me, my ability to think an analyze things... what makes me human and makes me feel alive... is contrary to what is regarded as "male."

Then what off designing systems and building things... this is a stereotypically male thing to do. Then why isn't it considered manly?

The R-complex is named for the most advanced part of the brain higher mammals share with reptiles. It is responsible for rage, xenophobia, basic survival fight-or-flight responses, territoriality and social hierarchy, along with the desire to submit to stronger (Alpha Type) members of one's own species.

One thing I alluded to in my previous post is the Reptilian Complex, in which basic horomone-driven and instinctual reactions are from a part of the brain that has remained the same since the days of reptiles, while progressively higher and higher reasoning abilities are part of newer systems that are "wrapped" around the lower functions. To quote wiki:



So, in other words, people who use logic and reasoning in life are using a more evolved part of the brain than those who think only on instinct.

So you are basically saying... this guy isn't sexy...

Never thought anyone taking a crap was, particularly.

Surprised that doesn't go along with your multitude of perversions...

Nah. Never been with anyone who convinced me
that I desired that. Perhaps if you and I were together....

Your offer makes me want to throw up...

Hmm... it seems strange that a higher functioning more evolved brain function would be the exact function that leads to that person mating less...

Is that too much of a problem when you consider overpopulation?

So you are basically saying... this guy isn't sexy...

The Capitalist threat

What kind of society do we want? "Let the free market decide!" is the often-heard response. That response, a prominent capitalist argues,undermines the very values on which open and democratic societies depend.

IN The Philosophy of History, Hegel discerned a disturbing historical pattern -- the crack and fall of civilizations owing to a morbid intensification of their own first principles. Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.

The term "open society" was coined by Henri Bergson, in his book The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932), and given greater currency by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). Popper showed that totalitarian ideologies like communism and Nazism have a common element: they claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Since the ultimate truth is beyond the reach of humankind, these ideologies have to resort to oppression in order to impose their vision on society. Popper juxtaposed with these totalitarian ideologies another view of society, which recognizes that nobody has a monopoly on the truth; different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of social organization the "open society." Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies.

Written during the Second World War, The Open Society and Its Enemies explained what the Western democracies stood for and fought for. The explanation was highly abstract and philosophical, and the term "open society" never gained wide recognition. Nevertheless, Popper's analysis was penetrating, and when I read it as a student in the late 1940s, having experienced at first hand both Nazi and Communist rule in Hungary, it struck me with the force of revelation.

I was driven to delve deeper into Karl Popper's philosophy, and to ask, Why does nobody have access to the ultimate truth? The answer became clear: We live in the same universe that we are trying to understand, and our perceptions can influence the events in which we participate. If our thoughts belonged to one universe and their subject matter to another, the truth might be within our grasp: we could formulate statements corresponding to the facts, and the facts would serve as reliable criteria for deciding whether the statements were true.

No, I'm questioning that it even evolved like that.

If the very trait causes them to create less progeny.... isn't that counter to evolution?

<snip>

... If this trend continues, we must either learn to terraform other planets, or otherwise face extinction due to Earth not being able to support all of us.
.

First we need to take a journey, since you are looking for a "magic bullet"for ONE single solution or one absolute truth...

Your problem is that you are too narrow and prejudice against things that women like to talk about or "small talk", if you're not going to try to expand your horizons, then that's your choice.

But you can't expect women to change what they are attracted to which has been honed by millions of years of evolution.