III. CRITIQUE OF 'POLITICAL-CORRECTNESS'
A. In the bad-old-days of paternalism, female human beings were, more-or-less, defined as being inferior to males.
Now, in the new cultural order of political-correctness female human beings are defined as being the same as men. This subjects them to being judged by standards of male success and accomplishment and sometimes simply being humored as being 'one of the guys' .
The 'sameness' tenet protects males from having to recognize that in some fields of human endeavor (eg, conceiving, giving birth, and breast-feeding) a woman is obviously vastly superior to a man.
The present blogger perceives that male functioning and female functioning are equally important in life and complementary but not the same. Also, in practice, a woman usually does non-sexual things such as managing a company, flying an airplane, or performing surgery better than many men.
.
Basically, if a man tells his wife, "You are just as good as me", it is a veiled insult because she is, in fact, better than he.
A female human being (and the man and children in her life) thrives when complimented, appreciated, and respected rather than judged (by any standard).
For the moment, I shall leave it to others to offer their ideas about what a male is naturally good at doing better than a female.
But I do offer that a male is able to, if it suits her: (i) relieve a female's self-sufficient boredom, (ii) give her a sense of purpose (with associated increase in self-esteem) and (iii) give her the chance to participate in the cosmic evolutionary project that is procreational birth-giving (nature itself).
B. The sexual sameness doctrine of the virtual 'cult' of Political Correctness is currently applied in such a way that there is a 'uni-sexual' ethos. In practice, this means that a woman's success in such fields as business and politics is not endorsed unless she has achieved it by miming traditional male stances, attitudes and dress.
For example Ms. Hillary Clinton covers her considerable innate female beauty by dressing in pant-suits, expressing herself with male speech patterns and logic and avoiding overt 'flirtation'. She is enthusiastically supported by disciples of 'political-correctness'.
On the other hand, Ms. Sarah Palin has been submitted to kind of auto de fe by 'crusaders' of 'political correctness' because she presents herself with overt female beauty by: (i) her manner of dressing herself, (ii) her charm (eg, 'flirting' with her audience by referring to the "lip-stick" "hockey-mom") and (iii) her traditional/natural female ways of thinking and expressing herself (eg, referring to Putin "raising his head" - almost visible from her home in Alaska). In her early life, she participated in a 'Beauty Pageant'!
It seems that, largely, acolytes of Political Correctness are bigoted and intolerant with a woman's success unless it has been achieved by 'aping' men.
C. (Addendum - July 5th) The editors of Vanity Fair seem to feel that an overtly beautiful woman such as Ms. Sarah Palin should 'stay in her place': a fashion 'runway' or the fashion pages of the magazine. They express a kind of righteous indignation and hostility towards her functioning as a female politician rather than a female who imitates male politicians.
Every competent woman is intrinsically and naturally a "narcissist" who holds herself and her children as her highest and most important principles of functioning.
Male "power corrupts"; not female power! The latter is the essence of life and progress in the cosmos.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
II. THE MATTER OF DUALISM
Descartes, the French mathematician, scientist and philosopher, advocated the concept that the (i) human mind (0r soul) and the (ii) human body are made of different substances: a duality of functioning.
While it seemed apparent that the mind and the body interact, Descartes was at a loss to know how connection between the two 'substances' occurred; but he speculated that the mid-line pineal gland in the skull somehow accomplished this.
During the second half of the 20th century, the matter of dualism has been re-addressed in the fields of poetry, philosophy and neurology.
In the poem/song Closing Time, Leonard Cohen describes, "...your body's really you."
In his book Consciousness Explained, the philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett describes human functioning as occurring without any "Cartesian theater" inside the brain where you or I are 'sitting' and (a) 'watching' what our eyes have detected and (b) 'pushing buttons' or 'pulling levers' to make our limbs and fingers move, etc. One's body/somatic functioning is one's consciousness. (Without body, there is no mind/soul!)
Gilbert Ryle, in his earlier book, The Concept of Mind, carefully and elaborately describes how a person mis-perceives his/her sensations, memories and consciousness as being independent of his/her body - a "ghost in the machine".
From a neurological perspective, Antonio Damasio's Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain draws asexual neurophysiological conclusions regarding the mind-body problem in terms of the basic structures and states associated with life. But he notes (p.190): "...the explanation of how mind and brain are related becomes more difficult when the brain-part of the body is divorced from the body-proper. Regrettably, this dualistic frame still works like a screen and does not let us see what is clearly in front of our eyes--namely the body in its broadest sense, and its relevance to the making of the mind."
Yet Damasio quotes Spinoza: "...the human mind is the idea of the human body."
Damasio's "screen" that "...does not let us see what is clearly in front of our eyes..." may be the sameness doctrine of 'political-correctness' - see Critique of Political-Correctness post # III.
Also, Damasio's "divorce" of "the brain part of the body" from "the body proper" is, merely, a kind of fiction. It is quite arbitrary to believe that the neurological apparatus located within the skull is essentially different than the network of nerve cells spread throughout "the body proper" (similarly the integratd hypophyseal-pituitary hormonal system does not distinguish between "brain part" and "body proper"). What is within the skull is simply a fantastically elaborate 'switching' system that mediates and moderates the interaction between sensory input and motor output.
The human being (and other animals) thinks and remembers with its whole neuronal and hormonal system. Surely, an accomplished pianist does not have his/her skill localized to the part of 'the brain' within his/her skull. He/she remembers how to perform a piece of music with his/her whole body - especially his/her arms and fingers.
But lack of a functional boundary between "brain part" and "body proper" entails that the highly innervated and anatomically different (complementary) procreational genitalia of a male and a female tend to produce heterosexually different (complementary) thoughts, emotions, and decision-making processes - a violation of the 'sameness' doctrine of 'political-correctness.
Descartes, the French mathematician, scientist and philosopher, advocated the concept that the (i) human mind (0r soul) and the (ii) human body are made of different substances: a duality of functioning.
While it seemed apparent that the mind and the body interact, Descartes was at a loss to know how connection between the two 'substances' occurred; but he speculated that the mid-line pineal gland in the skull somehow accomplished this.
During the second half of the 20th century, the matter of dualism has been re-addressed in the fields of poetry, philosophy and neurology.
In the poem/song Closing Time, Leonard Cohen describes, "...your body's really you."
In his book Consciousness Explained, the philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett describes human functioning as occurring without any "Cartesian theater" inside the brain where you or I are 'sitting' and (a) 'watching' what our eyes have detected and (b) 'pushing buttons' or 'pulling levers' to make our limbs and fingers move, etc. One's body/somatic functioning is one's consciousness. (Without body, there is no mind/soul!)
Gilbert Ryle, in his earlier book, The Concept of Mind, carefully and elaborately describes how a person mis-perceives his/her sensations, memories and consciousness as being independent of his/her body - a "ghost in the machine".
From a neurological perspective, Antonio Damasio's Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain draws asexual neurophysiological conclusions regarding the mind-body problem in terms of the basic structures and states associated with life. But he notes (p.190): "...the explanation of how mind and brain are related becomes more difficult when the brain-part of the body is divorced from the body-proper. Regrettably, this dualistic frame still works like a screen and does not let us see what is clearly in front of our eyes--namely the body in its broadest sense, and its relevance to the making of the mind."
Yet Damasio quotes Spinoza: "...the human mind is the idea of the human body."
Damasio's "screen" that "...does not let us see what is clearly in front of our eyes..." may be the sameness doctrine of 'political-correctness' - see Critique of Political-Correctness post # III.
Also, Damasio's "divorce" of "the brain part of the body" from "the body proper" is, merely, a kind of fiction. It is quite arbitrary to believe that the neurological apparatus located within the skull is essentially different than the network of nerve cells spread throughout "the body proper" (similarly the integratd hypophyseal-pituitary hormonal system does not distinguish between "brain part" and "body proper"). What is within the skull is simply a fantastically elaborate 'switching' system that mediates and moderates the interaction between sensory input and motor output.
The human being (and other animals) thinks and remembers with its whole neuronal and hormonal system. Surely, an accomplished pianist does not have his/her skill localized to the part of 'the brain' within his/her skull. He/she remembers how to perform a piece of music with his/her whole body - especially his/her arms and fingers.
But lack of a functional boundary between "brain part" and "body proper" entails that the highly innervated and anatomically different (complementary) procreational genitalia of a male and a female tend to produce heterosexually different (complementary) thoughts, emotions, and decision-making processes - a violation of the 'sameness' doctrine of 'political-correctness.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
I. RECOVERING and RESTORING AN 'ANTIQUE' CONCEPT
In current North American culture, there are many popular terms referring to types of psychological and/or physical interaction between human beings: gay, homosexual, lesbian, straight, buddy, babe, dear, darling, male-bonding, etc.
However, another term is rarely used except to be disparaged and critiqued by homosexuals. This word is heterosexual - denoting complementary (as distinct from supplementary) interaction between two life entities representing the two different and complementary sexes involved in procreational endeavor (procreation as distinct from creation or mere reproduction)
ADDENDUM: Although, this present blogger will compare and contrast heterosexual marriage and homosexual 'marriage' in a later posting, it may be noted that, as of this date, the U.R.L. www.philosophyofhomosexuality.com remains available for a homosexual to procure and use. I would read his/her ideas carefully.
The present blogger does here proffer his perception that male homosexuals achieve, in the present, an existential status akin to that of being An Immortal. Presumably, this phenomenon ends at the point of death because it is a mortal immortality.
ADDENDUM #2: It seems that, in contemporary politically-correct parlance, there is only one "sex" - but two "genders". Application forms now ask for a person's "gender" - male or female.
In current North American culture, there are many popular terms referring to types of psychological and/or physical interaction between human beings: gay, homosexual, lesbian, straight, buddy, babe, dear, darling, male-bonding, etc.
However, another term is rarely used except to be disparaged and critiqued by homosexuals. This word is heterosexual - denoting complementary (as distinct from supplementary) interaction between two life entities representing the two different and complementary sexes involved in procreational endeavor (procreation as distinct from creation or mere reproduction)
ADDENDUM: Although, this present blogger will compare and contrast heterosexual marriage and homosexual 'marriage' in a later posting, it may be noted that, as of this date, the U.R.L. www.philosophyofhomosexuality.com remains available for a homosexual to procure and use. I would read his/her ideas carefully.
The present blogger does here proffer his perception that male homosexuals achieve, in the present, an existential status akin to that of being An Immortal. Presumably, this phenomenon ends at the point of death because it is a mortal immortality.
ADDENDUM #2: It seems that, in contemporary politically-correct parlance, there is only one "sex" - but two "genders". Application forms now ask for a person's "gender" - male or female.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)