Xev,
I've been here trying to whittle this thing down to the essentials, but this is not my forte and in the end I've decided to just post. I have tried to keep the quotes limited to on topic points and drop the jokes (although I had several in mind while reading.)
Alright, let's see how long this is.
It seems that you have stereotyped your keyboard, perhaps?
I get what you're saying. It's easy to fall into a rut.
Comfort zone.
Same shit, different day.
Simple. Simple. Simple.
Man is truly in his element when he is challenged by the new though.
It's just that he's more cofortable when surrounded by the old.
An inherent conflict between wants and haves.
Reminds me of a saying, "You got want in one hand and shit in the other. Which fills up first?"
I have never heard this before. You think the whole thing was merely a conspiracy theory? I do know that ads are designed to draw attention to themselves in a subliminal manner. It's not so much that actually coerces you into doing things against your will, it just draws your eye. That's all the ad companies care about. Every additional eye that actually sees the ad as opposed to just glancing by the ad is an increase in revenue.
I've never read, I'm afraid. I haven't read a wide spectrum of philosophy. I can't really conceive that our sexual mores are from pre-christian times. The pagans were rather open sexually. As were the Romans. And all other cultures that I've read of were mostly open about sexuality. It seems to arrive at precisely the time of Christianity.
Consider if you only had a granola bar at rare times. If, because of its rarity, it was seen as a treat. It's not about any inherent value such as wholesomeness or sinfulness (as I'm sure you're aware), it's about scarcity. It's a form of supply and demand.
Stereotyping or idealizing situations, times, people, places, whatever, is a shortcut to understanding. Rather than spending the time and energy required to actually take a wide sample of a certain group, one simply takes a limited sample and applies it to the whole.
Of course, the question is, what would an acceptable sample be to eliminate the label of stereotyping? I bet there is no limit to it. We can never achieve true freedom from stereotyping because we can never sample enough of the given topic.
Leads to the problem of being unable to simulate the universe with a model less complex than the universe itself. All we can do is move towards a limit of error which we find acceptable. Some people's limits are higher than others.
And, when dealing with eras rather than people, sampling is impossible. All we can get is hazy memories or dusty old history books. All of which were subject to their own stereotypical shortcuts and idealizations.
Ahh. What I wouldn't give for a time machine. Or just a time mirror. Or something to part the veil of history.
I've heard stories of 'boys being boys' in Japan being the gang-raping of girls. And there are also stories of white women being lured to Japan with promises of modelling careers only to end up as sex-slaves.
I've also heard other lurid tales of the differences between our cultures. Things that they take as par for the course.
Yes. But not always. Some large people are large only because they were once small. These people go about picking fights with any and all to prove to themselves how big they are. Funny thing is that I don't they ever prove it to themselves. They never escape the high school atomic wedgie.
But, what I was implying with my original question was about mental attitudes. That, while your instructor's wife might be able to kick ass, she might not be able to kick her husband's ass simply because she sees herself as inferior to him.
I agree that it's a projection. I won't argue that.
The violence comes in with those who would use it. Those who would think that using a disembodied piece of anatomy for 'comfort' purposes is cool. Someone who draws comfort from pieces of the body rather than the body as a whole.
Dahmer would love this idea. Of course, he'd want the male version with an erect phallus, but still. It's just anatomy.
Probably a lot. That was my point. That it may be a purely modern invention. If it even exists now.
Interesting how you and I differ on this. To me, the baggage that comes along with getting involved with those you don't respect is worse. The inanity of their conversation. The wishing to wash them off when you were done.
To you, it is about the ties that come with those you care for.
I've been told I'm not romantic. And I've never felt romantic. But, I think in this, maybe I'm a romantic.
At least you don't have to have your first period again. (Couldn't resist this one joke.)
Maybe so, but the lines for each of them still stretch around the block. Even Cheney. I suppose it has to do with stereotyping again. It's easier to assume that those in power are powerful than to have to judge for yourself whether they contain power within or not.
And, by the way, I know a certain Slovenian who has expressed an interest in Gates.
But, I don't think that Einstein would view himself as powerful. He was a humble and self-effacing man.
Think about it. Einstein before his fame. You had no idea who he was. He works in the patent office. He's odd. Somewhat spacey. Little prospects for success in any field. He's a humble man. Not pretentious or arrogant at all.
Is he powerful? Would you judge him so?
I suppose I'm just asking how often you're right as compared to wrong. How often you change your position on later consideration. And how many times you suspect that you may be mistaken.
I don't suppose there's any way to gauge your own accuracy in this.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorum. A system can't prove its own consistency.
We see eye to eye on this.
Academicians are, many times, people who don't have the social nuance that others have. It's not strange at all that you should be this way. In fact, double so because of your philosophical background. It is the thinkers who realize that the game is rigged.
Good point. Lots of different types of sensitivity. One for each sense, I'd imagine.
But, emotional sensitivity is somewhat different. It doesn't deal with a sense, per se. Or does it? I was thinking of it as in tune with one's own emotions, but it also deals with the emotions of others. A judgement of body language and such.
Hmm.
Mental sensitivity would also be like this. Dealing with inner associations and outer sensations. An amalgamation of the senses.
Anyway, point taken.
But, isn't this the opposite argument to that which you were making earlier about how culture plays a large part?
And, you were right earlier. While we do have certain inbred characteristics, culture also plays a large part in who we are and how we act.
Nature/nurture.
Instinct vs. cultural indoctrination.
As humans, we are more able to forgo instinct if the reasons are valid enough. Fitting into one's culture is generally seen as a valid reason to sublimate instinct.
Yes, I have. Much better than I thought it would be originally. It's been a while though. Is there a relevant line or something? All I rememer is he was making soap from the asses of the stars.
Maybe not literally in charge, but the influence of women on culture cannot be erased. After all, we all have mommies. And often it is the women who are seen as the holders of our moral values. The instillers of moral values. So, who's fault is this sensitive man movement?
Seems to me that women got what they asked for and aren't happy with the results.
Funny how it works that way.
There is an interesting trait of women. They like to change men. They often go for the bad boy and try to change him into a 'worthwhile' man. But, if this poor guy ever succumbs to her attempts at alteration then he becomes weak in her eyes for allowing himself to be changed. For being malleable.
I would be surprised if it didn't have something to do with it.
And, by the way, we are delving into real Freudian topics with this.
"How do you feel about your Mother?"
Hmm.
What I would think is that perhaps when younger I was looking for mother's love perhaps. And that I was apt to take love (or rather, sex) where I found it. But, my intellect drove me to analyze the benefit of these encounters vs. the loss. And the loss was greater than the gain.
But, having a small list of partners sort of precludes the 'looking for love' hypothesis. Doesn't it?
I think it was mainly just a cost/benefit analysis.
Kaufmann's translations of Nietzsche stress this. He says that the key to understanding Nietzsche's philosophy is to understand that it was the work of an extremely lonely man. A man whose mania drove him to write and write and write and who was largely unaccepted during his own lifetime. His ideas found no home in the outer world and instead rattled about his cage.
There's a description of Nietzsche that Kaufmann gave that is quite touching. I typed it out for Gendanken once and could reproduce it here if you're interested.
Yes. A tendency to look beneath the surface but to lose the forest for the trees.
I do the same at times. Although, I tend to ramble and go all over the place so generally cover my bases.
One last thing. What we have been talking about quite a bit is stereotyping and objectification. Objectification is at the heart of my argument that these pillows are... creepy. All this reminded me of something that Gendanken said to me once. This is from her journals and was culled from Sartre's On Being and Nothingness.
Stereotyping, of course, is more of a sport to be taken to masses rather than on an individual basis. But, the same idea applies.
It seems to me that stereotypes breed through identification of the masses and falls apart from identification of an individual. However, even in the breaking of a stereotype, we are still likely to fall victim to the lesser stereotyping of a person. This objectification and simplification.
What am I saying? How does this relate to a pillow shaped like legs?
Because, while the pillow isn't a man, and never will be, it is in the image of man and is an objectification of man.
Is it any wonder that many religions have proscriptions against graven images?
(Hmm. That makes me wonder. Would this pillow count as a graven image? Or does it need a head for that?)
Gendanken,
Pornosopher. Nice. I like that.
However, I'm not as seasoned as you may be thinking. I've seen enough to be able to stereotype but perhaps not enough to really know what I'm talking about.
Besides, you can't tell me that you didn't know that the Japanese were sexual freaks. You don't need to watch their porn to come to that understanding. It's pretty much a given about their culture.
Of course. It is. But, it certainly speaks of an objectification. And the kneeling pose strikes certain chords that ring with overtones of submission. As I've said to Xev, it's likely a consequence of my western mind and attitudes towards kneeling in general. The Japanese kneel on a regular basis. It's just how they sit. And so the submissiveness may not be intended or seen as such by the target market.
Is it? Lacy?
Anyway, it's not quite the same.
Not in how I've been dealing with it.
Think Dahmer and his refrigerator full of body parts for comfort.
But a marketing genius if I made a million dollars while doing it.
Yes?
It's a pillow that takes on the shape of the human form.
It's not merely a pillow. If it was it wouldn't cost 90 dollars.
It is human substitute.
It's a psychological crutch.
And those who are of the mentality to receive comfort from a crutch are... odd, to say the least.
Again. Think Dahmer.
It's about a mentality.
Yes. But, the pillow is a sort of power substitute.
It allows the powerless to get a small feeling of power.
Perhaps.
Else comfort.
Either way it's disturbing.
Heh. Not really. If I was being a feminist and saying that it's an outrage or something then I would be a leftist. But, I'm simply noting the properties of this pillow. This human-shaped pillow.
Good point.
(I know what you've been watching. I didn't watch it one time this year. I've been bad.)
Anyway, no, I don't.
Why?
Because Ralphie's dad's lamp for one is not kneeling.
And for two isn't meant to be used in the same way. It's not meant to comfort some lonely shlub.
However, I could be wrong in this and this goes to show that much of my objection to this is that it's kneeling. That and its use.
It, too, is a disembodied body part. And, in fact, does bring up vague stirrings of the Dahmer thing. But not as much as the pillow. The pillow is meant to be touched. To be carressed. Fondled.
The lamp is just to put in the window and bug the wife.
I've been here trying to whittle this thing down to the essentials, but this is not my forte and in the end I've decided to just post. I have tried to keep the quotes limited to on topic points and drop the jokes (although I had several in mind while reading.)
Alright, let's see how long this is.
It seems that you have stereotyped your keyboard, perhaps?
I get what you're saying. It's easy to fall into a rut.
Comfort zone.
Same shit, different day.
Simple. Simple. Simple.
Man is truly in his element when he is challenged by the new though.
It's just that he's more cofortable when surrounded by the old.
An inherent conflict between wants and haves.
Reminds me of a saying, "You got want in one hand and shit in the other. Which fills up first?"
I have never heard this before. You think the whole thing was merely a conspiracy theory? I do know that ads are designed to draw attention to themselves in a subliminal manner. It's not so much that actually coerces you into doing things against your will, it just draws your eye. That's all the ad companies care about. Every additional eye that actually sees the ad as opposed to just glancing by the ad is an increase in revenue.
I've never read, I'm afraid. I haven't read a wide spectrum of philosophy. I can't really conceive that our sexual mores are from pre-christian times. The pagans were rather open sexually. As were the Romans. And all other cultures that I've read of were mostly open about sexuality. It seems to arrive at precisely the time of Christianity.
Consider if you only had a granola bar at rare times. If, because of its rarity, it was seen as a treat. It's not about any inherent value such as wholesomeness or sinfulness (as I'm sure you're aware), it's about scarcity. It's a form of supply and demand.
Stereotyping or idealizing situations, times, people, places, whatever, is a shortcut to understanding. Rather than spending the time and energy required to actually take a wide sample of a certain group, one simply takes a limited sample and applies it to the whole.
Of course, the question is, what would an acceptable sample be to eliminate the label of stereotyping? I bet there is no limit to it. We can never achieve true freedom from stereotyping because we can never sample enough of the given topic.
Leads to the problem of being unable to simulate the universe with a model less complex than the universe itself. All we can do is move towards a limit of error which we find acceptable. Some people's limits are higher than others.
And, when dealing with eras rather than people, sampling is impossible. All we can get is hazy memories or dusty old history books. All of which were subject to their own stereotypical shortcuts and idealizations.
Ahh. What I wouldn't give for a time machine. Or just a time mirror. Or something to part the veil of history.
I've heard stories of 'boys being boys' in Japan being the gang-raping of girls. And there are also stories of white women being lured to Japan with promises of modelling careers only to end up as sex-slaves.
I've also heard other lurid tales of the differences between our cultures. Things that they take as par for the course.
Yes. But not always. Some large people are large only because they were once small. These people go about picking fights with any and all to prove to themselves how big they are. Funny thing is that I don't they ever prove it to themselves. They never escape the high school atomic wedgie.
But, what I was implying with my original question was about mental attitudes. That, while your instructor's wife might be able to kick ass, she might not be able to kick her husband's ass simply because she sees herself as inferior to him.
I agree that it's a projection. I won't argue that.
The violence comes in with those who would use it. Those who would think that using a disembodied piece of anatomy for 'comfort' purposes is cool. Someone who draws comfort from pieces of the body rather than the body as a whole.
Dahmer would love this idea. Of course, he'd want the male version with an erect phallus, but still. It's just anatomy.
Probably a lot. That was my point. That it may be a purely modern invention. If it even exists now.
Interesting how you and I differ on this. To me, the baggage that comes along with getting involved with those you don't respect is worse. The inanity of their conversation. The wishing to wash them off when you were done.
To you, it is about the ties that come with those you care for.
I've been told I'm not romantic. And I've never felt romantic. But, I think in this, maybe I'm a romantic.
At least you don't have to have your first period again. (Couldn't resist this one joke.)
Maybe so, but the lines for each of them still stretch around the block. Even Cheney. I suppose it has to do with stereotyping again. It's easier to assume that those in power are powerful than to have to judge for yourself whether they contain power within or not.
And, by the way, I know a certain Slovenian who has expressed an interest in Gates.
But, I don't think that Einstein would view himself as powerful. He was a humble and self-effacing man.
Think about it. Einstein before his fame. You had no idea who he was. He works in the patent office. He's odd. Somewhat spacey. Little prospects for success in any field. He's a humble man. Not pretentious or arrogant at all.
Is he powerful? Would you judge him so?
I suppose I'm just asking how often you're right as compared to wrong. How often you change your position on later consideration. And how many times you suspect that you may be mistaken.
I don't suppose there's any way to gauge your own accuracy in this.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorum. A system can't prove its own consistency.
We see eye to eye on this.
Academicians are, many times, people who don't have the social nuance that others have. It's not strange at all that you should be this way. In fact, double so because of your philosophical background. It is the thinkers who realize that the game is rigged.
Good point. Lots of different types of sensitivity. One for each sense, I'd imagine.
But, emotional sensitivity is somewhat different. It doesn't deal with a sense, per se. Or does it? I was thinking of it as in tune with one's own emotions, but it also deals with the emotions of others. A judgement of body language and such.
Hmm.
Mental sensitivity would also be like this. Dealing with inner associations and outer sensations. An amalgamation of the senses.
Anyway, point taken.
But, isn't this the opposite argument to that which you were making earlier about how culture plays a large part?
And, you were right earlier. While we do have certain inbred characteristics, culture also plays a large part in who we are and how we act.
Nature/nurture.
Instinct vs. cultural indoctrination.
As humans, we are more able to forgo instinct if the reasons are valid enough. Fitting into one's culture is generally seen as a valid reason to sublimate instinct.
Yes, I have. Much better than I thought it would be originally. It's been a while though. Is there a relevant line or something? All I rememer is he was making soap from the asses of the stars.
Maybe not literally in charge, but the influence of women on culture cannot be erased. After all, we all have mommies. And often it is the women who are seen as the holders of our moral values. The instillers of moral values. So, who's fault is this sensitive man movement?
Seems to me that women got what they asked for and aren't happy with the results.
Funny how it works that way.
There is an interesting trait of women. They like to change men. They often go for the bad boy and try to change him into a 'worthwhile' man. But, if this poor guy ever succumbs to her attempts at alteration then he becomes weak in her eyes for allowing himself to be changed. For being malleable.
I would be surprised if it didn't have something to do with it.
And, by the way, we are delving into real Freudian topics with this.
"How do you feel about your Mother?"
Hmm.
What I would think is that perhaps when younger I was looking for mother's love perhaps. And that I was apt to take love (or rather, sex) where I found it. But, my intellect drove me to analyze the benefit of these encounters vs. the loss. And the loss was greater than the gain.
But, having a small list of partners sort of precludes the 'looking for love' hypothesis. Doesn't it?
I think it was mainly just a cost/benefit analysis.
Kaufmann's translations of Nietzsche stress this. He says that the key to understanding Nietzsche's philosophy is to understand that it was the work of an extremely lonely man. A man whose mania drove him to write and write and write and who was largely unaccepted during his own lifetime. His ideas found no home in the outer world and instead rattled about his cage.
There's a description of Nietzsche that Kaufmann gave that is quite touching. I typed it out for Gendanken once and could reproduce it here if you're interested.
Yes. A tendency to look beneath the surface but to lose the forest for the trees.
I do the same at times. Although, I tend to ramble and go all over the place so generally cover my bases.
One last thing. What we have been talking about quite a bit is stereotyping and objectification. Objectification is at the heart of my argument that these pillows are... creepy. All this reminded me of something that Gendanken said to me once. This is from her journals and was culled from Sartre's On Being and Nothingness.
By my look which fails to attain the subjectivity of the other as such, I transform him into a thing or an element of the world. I wrest from him his liberty, turning him into an object. By the same act I abolish him as other. Inversely, his look at me solidifies and petrifies me and turns me into an object or a 'thing' in the world. Every look, every relation with others is then of itself alienating and murderous. Every human-reality is in permanent danger in the world.
This is what Sartre calls "conflict of transcendences." By my look I dispose the world around me and congeal other men into things.
Each man emptying each other "down the drain" by the simple act of a glimpse.
"All it can do (the act of trying to capture some other's liberty - even if truly given) is transform the other ito an object, because we can never possess anything except as objects."
This seems to sum up the whole business of stereotyping and objectification quite nicely. We transform others into things so that we might possess them as objects. A static image to be held in the mind and understood in its entirety.This is what Sartre calls "conflict of transcendences." By my look I dispose the world around me and congeal other men into things.
Each man emptying each other "down the drain" by the simple act of a glimpse.
"All it can do (the act of trying to capture some other's liberty - even if truly given) is transform the other ito an object, because we can never possess anything except as objects."
Stereotyping, of course, is more of a sport to be taken to masses rather than on an individual basis. But, the same idea applies.
It seems to me that stereotypes breed through identification of the masses and falls apart from identification of an individual. However, even in the breaking of a stereotype, we are still likely to fall victim to the lesser stereotyping of a person. This objectification and simplification.
What am I saying? How does this relate to a pillow shaped like legs?
Because, while the pillow isn't a man, and never will be, it is in the image of man and is an objectification of man.
Is it any wonder that many religions have proscriptions against graven images?
(Hmm. That makes me wonder. Would this pillow count as a graven image? Or does it need a head for that?)
Gendanken,
Pornosopher. Nice. I like that.
However, I'm not as seasoned as you may be thinking. I've seen enough to be able to stereotype but perhaps not enough to really know what I'm talking about.
Besides, you can't tell me that you didn't know that the Japanese were sexual freaks. You don't need to watch their porn to come to that understanding. It's pretty much a given about their culture.
Of course. It is. But, it certainly speaks of an objectification. And the kneeling pose strikes certain chords that ring with overtones of submission. As I've said to Xev, it's likely a consequence of my western mind and attitudes towards kneeling in general. The Japanese kneel on a regular basis. It's just how they sit. And so the submissiveness may not be intended or seen as such by the target market.
Is it? Lacy?
Anyway, it's not quite the same.
Not in how I've been dealing with it.
Think Dahmer and his refrigerator full of body parts for comfort.
But a marketing genius if I made a million dollars while doing it.
Yes?
It's a pillow that takes on the shape of the human form.
It's not merely a pillow. If it was it wouldn't cost 90 dollars.
It is human substitute.
It's a psychological crutch.
And those who are of the mentality to receive comfort from a crutch are... odd, to say the least.
Again. Think Dahmer.
It's about a mentality.
Yes. But, the pillow is a sort of power substitute.
It allows the powerless to get a small feeling of power.
Perhaps.
Else comfort.
Either way it's disturbing.
Heh. Not really. If I was being a feminist and saying that it's an outrage or something then I would be a leftist. But, I'm simply noting the properties of this pillow. This human-shaped pillow.
Good point.
(I know what you've been watching. I didn't watch it one time this year. I've been bad.)
Anyway, no, I don't.
Why?
Because Ralphie's dad's lamp for one is not kneeling.
And for two isn't meant to be used in the same way. It's not meant to comfort some lonely shlub.
However, I could be wrong in this and this goes to show that much of my objection to this is that it's kneeling. That and its use.
It, too, is a disembodied body part. And, in fact, does bring up vague stirrings of the Dahmer thing. But not as much as the pillow. The pillow is meant to be touched. To be carressed. Fondled.
The lamp is just to put in the window and bug the wife.