Anders Breivik declared sane

[Snorrius]

Did Gurjieff say this automatically?

He probably considered himself an exception though we can not know for sure . But Gurjieff was truly remarkable man. I recommend reading P.D. Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" about Gurjieff and his views.

Acting solely on reason and rationality would lead you nowhere. Yet you can still choose one action over another. You may decide to eat strawberries today or any other day (within the realm of possibility).

You can choose.. the main problem is whether it was your "free choice". Basicly the most interesting scientific problem now is that a lot of actions we percieve as our "free choice" are actually done a little before than this choice was registered conciously and then this choice rationalized. There are a lot of fascinating experiments in this area.

I'm not sure what your point is, and why that means you don't have a free will.

First I need to point out that free will has different meaning. But it seems based on scientific research that we certainly do not have "free will" in strong sense (i.e. we can not make different choice in perfectly similar external and internal conditions) and it is a big question how many our decision which subjectively perceived as being free are actually done unconsciously and then labelled as "free" creating appropriate illusion. Yet again I refer you to appropriate books on this very interesting subject.

Especially you, Snorrius, who subscribes to doing what you wilt. The very essence of free agency. Or do you dissemble?

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" is not about "free will". It is about "True Will" - the core concept of Thelema. The idea is that every man (and woman) have a unique Will which one must discover and then follow it. It require not as much "free will" as ability to "know thyself" to discover what you really are and what your path is.

 

[Traitorfish]

feminist perversions

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

 

[Snorrius]

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Yeah. Feminism is bad but I think discussing it here makes even less sense then discussing free will.

 

[Traitorfish]

It was a play on the multiple meanings of the word "perversion".

 

[Borachio]

He probably considered himself an exception though we can not know for sure . But Gurjieff was truly remarkable man. I recommend reading P.D. Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" about Gurjieff and his views.

Read it 30 years ago. I preferred, IIRC, Tertium Organum. But in the end it all seemed so much speculation, and untestable. Like a lot of this sort of stuff. Gurjieff himself just seemed, to me, to be one of those self-publicists interested in making a living off the upper middle classes.

You can choose.. the main problem is whether it was your "free choice". Basicly the most interesting scientific problem now is that a lot of actions we percieve as our "free choice" are actually done a little before than this choice was registered conciously and then this choice rationalized. There are a lot of fascinating experiments in this area.

So you can choose...but you can't choose, eh? Yes, I've heard of this conscious realization of a prior unconscious choice business. If I have it right, that doesn't apply to choices you might make in terms of long term planning, i.e. anything over a few milliseconds.

First I need to point out that free will has different meaning. But it seems based on scientific research that we certainly do not have "free will" in strong sense (i.e. we can not make different choice in perfectly similar external and internal conditions) and it is a big question how many our decision which subjectively perceived as being free are actually done unconsciously and then labelled as "free" creating appropriate illusion. Yet again I refer you to appropriate books on this very interesting subject.

This is much the same as the previous paragraph. The bolded would indicate that the constraints can be sufficiently great to determine our actions. I would agree - but usually they aren't. And in those situations we have free will. How could it be otherwise?

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" is not about "free will". It is about "True Will" - the core concept of Thelema. The idea is that every man (and woman) have a unique Will which one must discover and then follow it. It require not as much "free will" as ability to "know thyself" to discover what you really are and what your path is.

This is our old chum Crowley. Long on talk - short on substance. (like Gurjieff) But here I show some old prejudices which you may disregard quite legitimately.

Just the same, I rather like the motto of Do what thou wilt. Since, for me, it makes one assume some responsibility for one's actions.

Avoiding responsibility is the main objection to the idea that we don't have free will, and leads us nicely back to Breivik. Didn't he make free choices? And if he didn't, why do people think he did?

 

[innonimatu]

I am glad that you wondered Because:
Oh, I do, too! I think of myself as a sovereign entity. With sovereign I mean, no one but myself has any direct say over what I do.
That may seem entirely contradictory to what I said.
Yet, it isn't. Because I do not make the mistake to confuse my self-perception with "objective"* perception. No one has a say. Things do. Ultimately. And absolutely .

I think that you are attributing too much influence to things. Or rather, too little to the small decisions people do.

Have you ever made a "small decision" to stay up and read some essay rather than go to bed? Have you ever gone out some day, or not gone out, and met someone who changed your ideas as a consequence? Small decisions always litter the path towards great decisions.

We may or may not be unable to change our beliefs through reasoning. I don't even want to take a stand there, I shall be agnostic concerning it. But we do make lots of small decisions which change the things we are exposed to.

How do we make those?
Mechanically, as a deterministic result of other things? That would be to say that all details of live were pre-determined, that the existence of the universe from its beginning (?) to its end (?) is already in place in every detail.
Instinctively? Id so, would it count as free will?
Emotionally? Dos that mean our free will is a result not of reason but of the consequences of emotions?

 

[Ailedhoo]

Yeah. Feminism is bad but I think discussing it here makes even less sense then discussing free will.

Why is the belive in equal gender rights bad?

 

[Borachio]

Those uppity women, eh? Why do they bother their pretty little heads about such lofty matters?

Women! Know your places!

Goddesses in the kitchen. Whores in the bedroom. End of story.

 

[Snorrius]

Why is the belive in equal gender rights bad?

Current feminism discourse is not about "equal gender rights". Equal rights were long ago achieved when women got the same rights to vote, to enter univercities, apply for the job, and to live a life they desire and can earn money for.

But current feminism fights for the equality of outcome and this totally different story. Equal rights (1) suppose equal responsibilities (2) gives you principle ability to try something but do not guarantee outcome. Modern feminists want to have equal or more rights than men but do not want to accept equal responsibility and fair competition. They still want to be protected like in patriarchal society but do not desire to accept its limitations. At the other side, they want to enjoy benefits of free society which allows you to choose the path you want but are not ready to fight equally in the society and compete evenly.

Read this thread for example. Girl wants to keep the baby AND to keep the job or get compensation. It is not fair competition. One must be free to make a choice and accept responsibility.

I will not even mention so-called "gender studies" and other silliness female "intellectuals" (we all understand if female is real intellectual she will not be feminist as smart people either man or woman see flaws of its approach) are generating.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Current feminism discourse is not about "equal gender rights". Equal rights were long ago achieved when women got the same rights to vote, to enter univercities, apply for the job, and to live a life they desire and can earn money for.

But current feminism fights for the equality of outcome and this totally different story. Equal rights (1) suppose equal responsibilities (2) gives you principle ability to try something but do not guarantee outcome. Modern feminists want to have equal or more rights than men but do not want to accept equal responsibility and fair competition. They still want to be protected like in patriarchal society but do not desire to accept its limitations. At the other side, they want to enjoy benefits of free society which allows you to choose the path you want but are not ready to fight equally in the society and compete evenly.

Read this thread for example. Girl wants to keep the baby AND to keep the job or get compensation. It is not fair competition. One must be free to make a choice and accept responsibility.

I will not even mention so-called "gender studies" and other silliness female "intellectuals" (we all understand if female is real intellectual she will not be feminist as smart people either man or woman see flaws of its approach) are generating.

So let me get this correct:

1) You feel equality has been achieved? There are still problems that have to be delt with. What of women bishops and of ensuring better CEO positions?

2) Your generalisation is a generalisation. Feminism has many joints and forms.

3) You bring a thread about someone who is ordered to cease a pregency or lose their job? You know that is against employee right yes? Are you saying that women that want a job should skip being a perent?

4) Gender studies are not to be dismissed.

5) I am unpleased with your claim that modern feminists are not intellectuals. Such notions is unChamber like.

 

[Traitorfish]

Current feminism discourse is not about "equal gender rights". Equal rights were long ago achieved when women got the same rights to vote, to enter univercities, apply for the job, and to live a life they desire and can earn money for.

But current feminism fights for the equality of outcome and this totally different story. Equal rights (1) suppose equal responsibilities (2) gives you principle ability to try something but do not guarantee outcome. Modern feminists want to have equal or more rights than men but do not want to accept equal responsibility and fair competition. They still want to be protected like in patriarchal society but do not desire to accept its limitations. At the other side, they want to enjoy benefits of free society which allows you to choose the path you want but are not ready to fight equally in the society and compete evenly.

Read this thread for example. Girl wants to keep the baby AND to keep the job or get compensation. It is not fair competition. One must be free to make a choice and accept responsibility.

I will not even mention so-called "gender studies" and other silliness female "intellectuals" (we all understand if female is real intellectual she will not be feminist as smart people either man or woman see flaws of its approach) are generating.

You really are a cartoon, aren't you?

 

[Snorrius]

So let me get this correct:
1) You feel equality has been achieved? There are still problems that have to be dealt with. What of women bishops and of ensuring better CEO positions?

Yet again we see like someone wants to achieve equality of outcome. Let me deal with "woman bishop". You want in FREE society to OBLIGE some social structure (like church) which have certain rules (for example no woman as bishops) break its rules.

It is not like a free society should work. If a group of people want to worship some long ago deceased guy and do not want women as bishops they should have right for this. But in a free society you if you do not like this can join another church, start your own or switch religion. Join Wicca for example - they almost fully female, nobody have problems with this. Invent your own cult after all.

Now about CEO. Nobody prohibit women to participate in social-darwinian fight for power, money, right to make strategical planning and decisions etc. A female is able to try this, another case that women generally perform worse in all of this areas which has biological roots. But it is totally another case. We all born unequal in this or that respect. And women are not prohibited by law to become CEOs, they still can try, and we know about women who were able to achieve very high positions of power: Catherine the Great, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher for example. And they did this without being feminists (actually if they were it is doubtful they could do what they did). They had strong will, wits and guts and earned high respect for this while feminists want to get results they did not deserve and personally I despise them for this approach.

2) Your generalisation is a generalisation. Feminism has many joints and forms.

It is redundant in modern countries long ago. Women can vote, can get education, can get a job. End of the story, you are free to fight or to just enjoy your life to the extent you can.

3) You bring a thread about someone who is ordered to cease a pregency or lose their job? You know that is against employee right yes? Are you saying that women that want a job should skip being a perent?

I will quote myself:

Well, woman indeed should have every right to keep her child if she wants. But it does not mean her employer have to take responsibility.

Woman have to make choice and to accept responsibility for the choice done. If she can not work for a year then employer (especially small business) certainly is not obliged to keep her and pay any money.

Yes, the choice is hers. As well as responsibility.

Her employer should have fired her right away without trying to offer any options and giving by this her an excuse to sue him.

4) Gender studies are not to be dismissed.

I love this type of argument.

5) I am unpleased with your claim that modern feminists are not intellectuals. Such notions is unChamber like.

Why do not you just show me an example of feminist intellectual(s)? Personally it seems to be oxymoron to me but I can easily change this potentially wrong opinion if you point me to some of worthy examples.

You really are a cartoon, aren't you?

My dear, it is Chamber, not the place for your silly trolling. Better check your own avatar .

 

[Traitorfish]

Why do not you just show me an example of feminist intellectual(s)?

How are you actually defining the term "intellectual"? I wouldn't usually ask, because the word isn't that ambiguous, but the fact that you pose the question as if it's something insightful leads me to think that you've got some unreasonably contrived set of criteria waiting in the wings. I mean, whether or not you like, say, Judith Butler, whether or not you think she has ever produce so much half a page of valuable material, she is quite self-evidently "an intellectual".

 

[Snorrius]

How are you actually defining the term "intellectual"? I wouldn't usually ask, because the word isn't that ambiguous, but the fact that you pose the question as if it's something insightful leads me to think that you've got some unreasonably contrived set of criteria waiting in the wings. I mean, whether or not you like, say, Judith Butler, whether or not you think she has ever produce so much half a page of valuable material, she is quite self-evidently "an intellectual".

Actually you have made an excellent point here, Traitorfish. You can when you want. I totally forgot about Butler even though her last books are still in my reading queue. I admit she is real intellectual worth of respect even according to my "contrived set of criteria waiting in the wings". Bright, clever, independent, transgressive.

But I found this slightly ironical in the context of feminist's intellectualdom - you have to be man in body or at least partly in the mind, to have some "androgynous" qualities (as occultist could say) to be successful intellectual (according to my contrived set of criteria; and I am not saying having "androgynous" qualities is a "bad thing" - quite to the contrary). She also had valid personal & strategical reasons to swear allegiance to feminism to promote her discourse within bigger feminist stream. Still she seems to be aware of its modern flaws. Here are few quotes:

I am much more open about categories of gender, and my feminism has been about women's safety from violence, increased literacy, decreased poverty and more equality. I was never against the category of men.

Sexual harassment law is very important. But I think it would be a mistake if the sexual harassment law movement is the only way in which feminism is known in the media.

I have always been very worried about hops of feminism who are highly regulative or repressive towards. I am against normativities and for sexual freedom. I always hated this saying that feminism is the theory and lesbianism must be the practice.

 

[Takhisis]

And the last post where we addressed Mr. Breivik, his actions or anything closely related to him was…

 

[Angst]

Why is the belive in equal gender rights bad?

i actually think that feminism is a semantic hellhole because it literally focuses on rights for the female and if feminism continued to exist after female acquisition of equality, it would seek to further women's rights beyond that of men, at least according to the word it's based on

therefore i refuse to assume feminism seeks equal gender rights as a definition

i do however think that, if women had less rights than men, feminism obviously would seek to leverage that difference in power, because that's the whole reason it was around to begin with

basically feminism is useful depending on your stance whether there is gender equality or not, so if there is, feminism is less useful and potentially a waste of people's time or even dangerous

feminists today have even taken gay rights upon them to fight for, which annoys me a little bit because while related to gender rights it actually not the reason they're there, if they work with that it sends the signal that they're done with the whole oppressed housewife deal

if you want something always-more-useful than real feminists, seek out equalists or feminists that are too stupid to know what their brand word means

gramar