Another Route to Patriarchy
 I appreciate the favorable response I have received concerning my blogs on patriarchy but recognize that some readers look upon it as a theory to be believed or disbelieved, accepted or disputed, rather than as a natural condition of the universe. These feelings and viewpoints have motivated me to present the principle of gender and its resultant patriarchal structure without beginning with the words gender and patriarchy.
Â
In order for any activity to happen there must be an assertive influence acting upon a receptive entity. An example would be the movement of an object, say a cup sitting upon a table. The cup sits upon the table in a perfectly receptive state and has no will. Unless some assertive influence comes in contact with that cup it will sit upon the table forever. Adding another receptive entity such as a second cup will not produce any movement. Only the application of force by an assertive influence can move the cups. If there were two assertive influences and no cups, no movement would result because there would not be anything to move. In order for anything to happen in the universe an assertive influence must act upon a receptive entity.
Â
When we drive a car, turn on a fan, or slice a loaf of bread; the car, fan, and loaf must be in a receptive condition.
Â
Natural phenomena such as hot and cold, light and dark, and noise and quiet all require one assertive influence in each area of activity. There is no such entity as cold. Cold is the absence of heat. We either add heat to something or remove the heat but we can’t make cold. Refrigerators remove heat from the food stored in them and eject it into the kitchen. Air conditioners remove heat from the room and eject it to the outside. The absence of heat results in lower temperatures, which we refer to as colder. We cannot make dark, we can only add or remove light. We cannot make quiet, we can only add or remove sound. Solar energy is the assertive influence that makes heat, light, and sound. We have heating, lighting, and sound engineers; we do not have cold, quiet, and dark engineers.
Â
Two opposing entities cannot operate in one area of activity. If cold were an entity that opposed heat, how could we heat anything? If darkness opposed light, how could we light anything? There can only be one assertive influence in any field of activity.
Â
In a grouping of people in any area of activity there must always be an assertive influence acting on the receptive entity. In the case of an army the General is the assertive influence and he acts upon the Colonels who are receptive to him. The Colonels in turn act as the assertive entity in regards to the Majors. This practice, known as the chain of command, flows down to the lowest level of command in the group, and is strictly enforced, else chaos would ensue.
Â
There is only one Captain on a ship, one President of a company, one manager of a baseball team, one coach of a football team. Among equal partners one is usually the dominant one, if that does not happen the partnerships usually do not last long. There is only one head of a herd, flock, troop, and pride. Wherever action takes place there can only be one assertive influence causing it.
Â
The assertive influence creates pregnancies, whereas the receptive entity becomes pregnant. Since those who create pregnancies are men or males, we call them masculine. Those who become pregnant are females and we call them feminine. The act of creating pregnancies occurs throughout the universe and the influence creating them is called masculine. Among humans those who create pregnancies become fathers and father is the root word for patriarchy.
Â
Patriarchy has a polygamous nature, for one assertive influence can direct or impregnate many receptive entities. Nebulae can spin off many Suns, Suns can spin off many planets, and the lion can impregnate many lionesses. Patriarchy provides for the care of all, no one is left out.
Â
Up to this point I have not mentioned gender. This universal patriarchal activity was first enunciated thousands of years ago as a universal principle of gender by the Egyptian Hermes Trismigistus, along with other fundamental principles that govern universal activity.
Â
In light of all of the above, is it not contrary to all of nature to invest women with the same power of men and expect the home or society to survive? And indeed they were invested with it; they could never seize it, they are the receptive entity. It was the ignorance of Western man of the universal principle of gender that caused him to do it.
Â
The entire universe is patriarchal and all societies since the beginning of time that survive have been patriarchal. It cannot be any other way. The Europeans did not practice the patriarchal polygamous culture. To compensate they developed city-states and a host of different forms of government none of which endured. The Western culture is collapsing-it is not patriarchal.
Â
I hope this article has helped to illustrate the universality and naturalness of patriarchy.
Also, I hope it acts as a motivator for the assertive influences who read this to decide to take action to regain their natural position in society and fulfill their natural function to propagate and preserve the species.
Â
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
February 8th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I wouldn’t let on about you burying your relatives if I was you, boychick, the authorities take a dim view of that. Perhaps you’ve had them for dinner before they went, with fava beans and a good Chianti…
February 8th, 2007 at 11:08 am
You don’t even comprehend how you make a damn decision; don’t tell me to get out of the matrix.
And your FEELINGS sure are touchy!
I’ve faced death 3 times in my life already; yes, kiddies, I was told I wasn’t supposed to live.
I’ve buried both sets of grandparents, both of my parents, and a nephew who was like a brother to me. Plus various aunts, uncles and cousins.
I don’t need lectures on real life from people who will argue about axiomatic things: we feel something is correct. There is NO other way to make a decision.
YOU need to stop watching so many movies, and THINK.
But you’re too obtuse to see this. So be it.
It has nothing to do with rules, feminism,
February 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Real decisiona are about life. Toy decisions about colors or what mood to be in are for children and other intellectual lightweights. Unwillingness to be constrained by standards results in bull-s**t thinking that there is nothing like right or wrong.
Fine.
Real life requires thinking about keeping alive. When you (randy) get to a point where your decisions will either directly save or take a life, get back to to me. Otherwise you’re just living a virtual life in the Matrix…
February 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Randy:
Now thats a stretch only a woman could make, that because I do not agree that math is based on feelings, I have a fear of emotions. WOW!
I havent seen your simple questions.
I wasn’t refering to the symbols Randy, and you know it. And I wasn’t taught a Pavlovian response to math, I was taught a system, a method. If you like you may assert that the system was taught via feelings, reward and punishment, but once the system is accepted, it has zero to do.
I am assuming you are a “there is no truth” and moral relativist kinds guy, for there is no way to square this opinion of right because it feels right and wrong vis versa with absolute truth. It is in the absolute where we find our most profound disagreement, and that really is a silly debate. In fact, any debate or argument with you is by your own definition silly since there is no objective measure of anything. I gotta work now, where a days work equals a days pay thankfully because my boss feels that it does.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:42 am
And BTW, if you can’t comprehend this, then this really isn’t that silly a conversation. It points to an underlying ignorance or an almost pathological fear of the words “feeling”, “emotions”, etc..
VERY instructional.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Look, what tells you that 1 is greater than 0? I keep on asking the SIMPLEST OF QUESTIONS, but get no direct answer. You “feel” that 1 is greater than 0, because you were taught that. How were you taught? Rewarded for believing it. Punished when you didn’t get it. Etc., etc., etc… You weren’t born knowing the symbol 1 was greater than the symbol 0.
It’s a simple concept people. You have to feel something to make decision. SHEEESH!
February 8th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I’m going to take the bait here, since we are way off into who knows where anyway. Its a no win argument randy because I will never “feel” that you are correct. In fact my the “feed” part of my biofeedback is smelling like BS.
Anyway, for sake of argument, there are feedback loops in factories, and in computers no? If a sensor gets a temperature higher then whats desired, feeds that back, and there is cooling introduced, thats feedback control. If an if /then stmt appears in computer code, a dry decision is made that 1 id greater than 0 and off the program goes.
I dont expect you will tell me these machines have feelings, and they are in essence making a basic decision, so why, when I am cooking and I check the temperature inside the turkey, and decide to add or reduce heat, is it not a dry logical decision for me and yet it is for the unfeeling machine? I can tell you that 1 is greater than 0 in a complete absence of feeling that it is correct!
I look for your response, but I’ll not take this debate any further, its a little silly.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:08 am
red pill: I’m Baaaaack!
I’m a little past mommy and the basement age-wise. My mom died in December 2005. Sorry you can’t follow the simplest of discussions. Because once one realizes that we all make decisions based on the feeling of correctness, it at least becomes possible to understand situations where people’s biofeedback loops differ from “normal”, whatever that is.
Take a hoarder. No amount of stuff gives them a feeling of “correctness”. So they continue to collect crap. You and I may not understand this, but that’s what it takes to satisfy their feedback loop.
Does this mean people should not be held accountable for thier actions because thier feedback loop is screwed up? No. Most people control thier feedback mechanisms. We can all do that to a certain extent. But are there psychopaths who are beyond help? Maybe. Regardless, society has to protect itself from those who damage others, regardless of the reason.
But once we realize that feelings control us, we can look at how to control those feelings.
My problem with red pill and others is the idea that you make a decision mysteriously. That somehow logic and reason are separated from feeling. Bullshit. Logic and reason are tools to arrive at a feeling of corrrectness. Because others emphasize other methods of obtaining this feeling, there become problems. Most women do not, in general, use logic as much as men. Hormones can cloud thier feelings of correctness. Hormones influence them in ways much different than they affect men.
Right now, there are 2 major tools that are used in this society to achieve a feeling of correctness. One is victimization, where empathy becomes a major factor in feeling correctness. The other, as evidenced by red pill, is arrogance. He would never admit to a simple premise: a feeling determines what is right or wrong to an individual.
The arrogance then became an insult. I did it earlier, and apologized in statement 30. I believe Hell will freeze over before there is reciprocation, however.
On with the show!
February 7th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Randy:
That was real fun! I think your mom is calling you out of the basement for dinner now. Bye!
February 7th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Conservativation, your problem of falling is still, non the less, a problem of feeling. This time, you feel that survival and/or lack of pain and/or disability is important. Otherwise, why would you care if you hit or not?
Guys, we are doing what is so typical here. We have different goals in this conversation. I am putting forward the bare mechanics of how ANY organism makes a decision: through biofeedback and a feeling of correctness. In reality, things are black and white. You act on feelings of correctness.
A step up from this is emotions, and ideas such as feminism, etc..
That really is all for today, folks!
February 7th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Please don’t fall straight for the provocation Randyf, but falling through the air unencumbered by parachute feels great, causes relaxation, if done long enough would lead to some restful meditative time, but the ground is a problem regardless how you feel about it.
I am so glad that all decisions are not based on emotion, though this is the direction in which we move along our feminised spectrum of feminine/masculane/male/female.
Joyanna, what is the world upset you so about this? I’ve read fire breathing posts that were eviscerating to women, but this one got you? Very interesting.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Randy:
Not so much of importance is that of how do you know you have a problem but how do you know when you are a success. I had this discussion somewhat recently with my g/f or whatever you prefer. I was accused of being a know it all and smug. Fine. Lets see, I’m self supporting, trying to figure out what to do with about 2m in assets when I die, I support her, my kids and pay for their school as well as child support. I support my elderly parent, I work full time, I’m 100% disabled and pay more in taxes than most here will gross. In spite of this I’m given a ‘read’ about why I think my point of view is the right way to go.
Hmmm.
Celebration of failure anyone?
People like you and Stephony actually do get me to thinking though.
I really should get more razorwire, clear the brush off the KZ and link up some more ammo…
February 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
And, maybe one of those factors affecting our internal feedback loops is the spiritual, as Elder George points out.
Love, to me, is a mixture of feelings and emotional states, not one overriding emotion. But if there was one word I would equate with love, it would be: precious.
Elder George, sorry for hijacking the thread. I do agree with you on many things, I can assure you.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
red pill:
“right and wrong is determined by what problem you have, what resources you have at hand and what you want to accomplish.”
A question: how do you determine you have a problem?
Or that you want to accomplish anything? What is your motivator? Could it be a feeling? Like, “I’m hungry”. “I’m cold”. “I’m fill-in-the-blank”.
I realize I wasn’t precise in the following sentence:
“In fact, ALL decisions are based on emotion.”
More precisely, all decisions are based on a feedback loop of biochemicals that stimulate your brain to either feel correct, or good, about something, or incorrect, or bad about something.
How those biochemicals interact are affected by many factors, as I pointed out above.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
leaders are those that convince followers of their correctness beliefs. Some ascend to this position, some have it thrust upon them, and some are allowed to act as leader by social contract. There are many possible coorect actions depending on the desired outcome. Different groups form that hold certain appreciations of correctness which are different from their neighbors.
This is why there are borders, and this is shy they must be honored…
February 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
One last post for right now.
My purpose for trying to lay a foundation on how decisions are made is to explain why those who believe differently can be so ferociuos and think they are both “right”.
In each person, the feeling of “correctness” drives them. While we may not understand why they feel they are correct, the process of “correctness”, the feedback loop I mentioned, drives everyone. People who use logic and reason when determining what “feels right”, determine what “feels right” using those tools. Those who base thier beliefs on emotion, get to “feels right” by other methods.
The key is, drugs can certainly affect what “feels right”. Outside forces, such as peer pressure, can affect what “feels right”. And, ritual and dogma can affect what “feels right”.
The problem I see, is that too many base their decisions through prisms of entitlement and the pursuit of power. It “feels correct” to be entitled, or to gain power at any cost.
Breaking these learned behaviors, when they have negative consequences, are key to winning.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
‘wandering isn a fog of denial of assessment of priorities is childs logic and majical thinking’
February 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
To randyf,
This comment is in resonse to your comment #23. I take it int the spirit in which it was given and thank you.
It’s amazing how the comments give direction to the blogs one writes. My intent was to clarify patriarchy and as always motivate men to action, instead I’m getting drawn into the polemics of what love, emotions, and intuition are or aren’t.
They are all three different, though we tend to speak of them interchangeably. Love is a spiritual quality. It is fulfilling and never fatiguing. Many people refer to God as love. Some of the homemakers or housewives of the past were filled with love. The more love they gave out the more it was replenished. They enjoyed their role so much they did not care to go on vacation because who would want a vacation form love and the happiness it brings? One can never get enough of the presence of one who emits love, whether it be a man or a woman. One of the great joys of patriarchy and the extended family that it produces is the feelings of warmth and security produced by the love that it contained. One of the problems of our society is that people are not loving enough or being loved enough.
Emotions on the other hand are fatiguing. Our present society, which is an emotionally motivated society, is in a state of chronic fatigue. These emotions create a multitude of illnesses for which pharmaceutical companies attempt to find cures, but never will.
Intuition on the other hand is that ability to obtain knowledge of things without any proof or source. It is an inner understanding and the only true source of knowledge. Ecclesiasticus1:1 states, All Wisdom is from the Lord. There is no other place from which to obtain knowledge. The feminine principle materializes and personalizes this knowledge and it becomes information. We live in the information age. We have forgotten the source of knowledge or how to get it. We have become enthralled with out own creation and made a reality out of it.
Hopefully that’s all I will say about love, emotions, and intuition in this blog. I do hope that there will be be more comments on patriarchy and steps to restore it.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
randy:
right and wrong is determined by what problem you have, what resources you have at hand and what you want to accomplish.
Know this:
Someone will always step to the fore to take charge in any situation. They will have their own perceptions of right and wrong. You can accept it or take charge yourself, but wandering in a fog of denial of assessment of priorities. Next time you feel like getting in touch with your *special* feelings, try driving with your eyes closed…
February 7th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Emotions are often very nice Acting on them is a luxury that few can afford. Exaltation of emotions is an effort of those with nothing else in their armamentarium to claim parity with those that have disciplined performance oriented discriminatory powers. There’s nothing special about having an extra hole in your bottom and nothing special about being incapable of rational thought…
February 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I wish I would have left off these sentences, because they serve no purpose:
“If you don’t get it, then you’re being obtuse on purpose, or you’re just not very bright. Yes, this is an insult.”
February 7th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
red pill, read what I wrote. I ask you a simple question, how do you know what’s right and wrong?
February 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I dont even have to read your stuff to know its crap. There are rules of success and rules for failure. Take your pick. Sorry for any spelling or syntax because I’m multitasking..
February 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
red pill, do you not get it? How do you know a sentence should be capitalized? Because it “feels” right.
There is a subtle chemical reaction that feeds a tiny bit of endorphins to your chemical receptors that feels good, if you capitalize a sentence. Other, negative chemicals cause you to FEEL THAT THIS PART OF THIS SENTENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER PART, if not actually wrong.
Without this feedback, without feeling, you could not make decisions. NOT ONE.
Feelings as related to merit: how do you determine what has merit and what doesn’t?
Like I said, you FEEL something is correct(or has merit). How you arrive at those feelings, may be through logical deduction, or inference, or not. But in the end, you decide that something feels right. I can’t simplify this anymore. If you don’t get it, then you’re being obtuse on purpose, or you’re just not very bright. Yes, this is an insult.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Redpill: But one could argue that all decisions have emotional motivation because making good decisions makes one happy or sustains a feeling of well being. One can and should use logic. We are alive and we exist, during our whole lifespan we are in one gigantic pursuit of happiness. The happiness is expressed differently: for some its constant pleasure, others its austerity, for others its strict religious adherence. Hell, for some, being depressed is their form of happiness. Its emotions that give us drive and ambition. Tell me, if one were to exist soley by logic would one strive to attain any goals? Logic would say “I exist and I do not require anything more than life, some shelter, and a means to support myself”. One would have no “fire in your belly” that would make you want/desire to succeed, achieve, and attain your goals. Emotions are the fuel of the mind and logic is the steering wheel. They both go hand in hand.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
furthermore, any success in decisionmaking bsed on feelings signifies the minute and unimportant nature of the tasks at hand. I make a good living making decisions that most are incapable of. If I was making decisions about one of you, most assuradly you wouldn’t want me guessing or going on vibes. A feeling based on clear assessment of the significant variables is not going on feelings, rather the feelings are a result of rational comparison of the pros and cons required in any significant discriminatory process. Like most of the blather passe as discussion here, there is no uniformity of the definitions of the terms so promiscuously tossed about, with words and concepts meaning only what the author desires, nothing more, nothing less. In this state of ideosyncratic neo-neologisms, nothing will be accomplished, as there is no discipline enforced by evaluation of the building blocks of communication…
Duhh!
February 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Decisions based on emotion are decisions based on intoxication. Claiming the value of emotions and feelings as major factors in decision-making certifies that one cannot or chooses not make them on merit. Most feelings are incorrect or unhelpful in solving problems unless like me you are precient and then 1/2 are still wrong…
February 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Mr. George, I don’t think you’re a bad person. Nor red pill, wtexas, or any of the others.
But, if you don’t see love as an emotion, then you’re over analysing life. In fact, ALL decisions are based on emotion. Either an answer “feels” right, or it doesn’t.
Without the feeling of “corrrectness”, there would be no way to gauge something right or wrong.
And more than anyone here seems to realize, we are all products of electrochemical reactions.
Change someone’s hormones, as an example, and you can change how they think. Or do you not believe in “Roid Rage”? I have personal experience in this, so if you disagree you show your own lack of true knowledge.
Another example is the electrical stimulation of areas of the brain, causing memories and feelings to be “relived”. This happens.
The problem with acknowledging our biochemical slavery is it upsets the religious applecart. Surely we have “free will”, independent from feelings and unassuagable by drugs? Surely we can “overcome”!
Anyway, this last issue opens up a huge can of worms. But any person who attacks science with “go take a walk” seems to be starting a walk in a messianic vien, to whit: “Ignore scientific methods, evidences, and truths: follow MY way!”
With all that I just wrote, I probably agree with 90% of what Elder George and others here say. It echoes what DkSantuary said in 12: it seems everyone here is so busy arguing over metaphysical minutia, that the 90% never gets acted on. Instead, people who should be allies become “enemies”. And looking for agreement on minutia replaces action.
This must change.
February 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
A witty saying means nothing? So now I have to droll with the punches?…
February 7th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Now I understand everything. Looking at comment #7 I see that Elder George is a Vulcan. Well, live long and prosper Sir. May the force be with you. All you need is love and I get by with a little help from my friends.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
To DKsanctuary,
It’s not moving because it doen’t exist.
Patience is required. We have two generations rased as though they were girls and women. They’ve become timid.
The women have lost it altogether. You see the comments to my blog. I’m amazed that only 10 million of them are suffering from depression.
The time to act is at hand. Get those whom you know who have similar feelings together and start something. I gave details in my comments to redpill.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Wow, George, you’ve really got me pegged, haven’t you? And thanks oodles for the “Elder Georgism”, I’ll be sure to use it on every, er, appropriate occasion. Perhaps I might also add Voltaire’s “A witty saying proves nothing.”
Given that you put down science and call it the “feminine route to knowledge”, which is a revelation sure to astound many if not enlighten them instantly, how is it that you can immediately follow this with a comment which appeals to the authority of “research”?
(Ignore the little man behind the green curtain, everyone.)
February 7th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
To Joyanna Adam,
It is Western man who has given you the power to vote and control their lives. Let them all look at your comments and weep.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
To red pill,
You’re so right but how many of your contemporaries understand that? Just look at the negative comments to these blogs. If there’s more who think like you in your neighborhood we can start a chapter of a movement there. Look at my website, I have a mission statement and how to attain it along with some informational materials. My book will be released officially in March and I am available to lecture.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
to DKSanctuary: Or perhaps the message is this: The virile robust man (or male lion) takes the lead while the demure petite damsel (lioness) follows at a respectful distance. Don’t we humans have a something like that already? Its called Islam.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
to DKSanctuary: I’m all in favor of the Mens movement and fair treatment for males in society. I just think Elder George equates apples to oranges. Heat, light, Sound are forms of energy, they don’t THINK. Lions are ANIMALS and CONTROLLED by chemicals: testosterone and estrogen. Elder George seems to want to equate these things with Humans. I say Humans are influenced by chemical impulses, however, we have conscious minds that can overide these chemical impulses. If Elder George equates male/female lions to male/female humans, then he is in effect saying we are simple animals at the mercy of hormones. Therefore when a man gets a whiff of an ovulating female he HAS NO CHOICE but to copulate right there in the middle of Times Square just like a male lion would do.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:58 am
This is all so silly: There need be no metaphysical correlate to natural fact. Men lead, women follow, that’s the way it is univerally. No further justification is needed. Yes there are from time to time exceptions, but that’s all there are.
A male in the real sense leads from the front, cutting the way and taking the risks and rewards.
A woman leads from the rear, having appointed some man to face the dangers, while admonishing him not to get hurt and not to take too long..
February 7th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Let me see if I got this: man’s overabundance of testosterone trumps any capacity of his brain having any kind of choice.
In other words, he does not think at all.
He is locked in his own world of natural selection.
And since love is not an emotion, then you just knocked men having to buy all those valentine gifts off the shelves.
Woman don’t need them.
I guess that means too that orgasim is also NOT an emotion, but a physical release.
I’m going to remember this one…thanks. I need to consult my hypothalamus the next time I see a man.
BECAUSE thank god, unlike a man, according to this theory, I still have a choice!
THANKS!
February 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
You see Elder George, this is why I feel the Men’s Movement is moving too slowly, Instead of trying to understand your point they attack you about the technicalities of physics.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am
To dcFather
Thanks for the internet copy of A Case for Father Custody. I’ll get back to you after I’ve read or scanned it.
If you live in DC you might consider revewiing DC By The Numbers, researach which showing that spending more money on DC education was fruitless. Without fathers at home there can be no progerss.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:16 am
To JD,
The natural order of things is a condition that the feminine oriented West has extreme difficulty in understanding. How else can you explain its devastation of the environment and its suppression of the metaphysical?
You said you have worked at a scientific lab, so I presume you are not there anymore. If this is true than you have taken a step forward in developing your mental, physical, and spiritual health. Labs are very unhealthy places to work, especially scientific ones. They are the worst of the cubicles in which Western man spends most of his life.
Science is mans somewhat organized record of his ignorance about himself and the world in which he lives. That’s an Elder Georgeism you can use. Is is the feminine route to knowledge, but unfortunately it uncovers little while it drowns in the information that it amasses.
Take a walk in the woods, or at least the park and see the activity of life. It will increase your knowledge without books and experiments.
I’m sending you a copy of “the cubists†by E-mail. It might to help get you further out of the cube.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:24 am
You don’t seem to have a high regard for emotions. I would argue that emotions are the “assertive influence” that seems to reign supreme in your ideology. You dismiss emotion as coming from our feminine aspect (therefore our passive aspect) yet those emotions are what causes action. Cain slew Abel because the emotion compelled him. Cain wasn’t sitting Budha-like contemplating his naval and coming up with a logical (masculine) conclusion that his life would be better sans Abel. As far as our society being on an emotional high, the Bible clearly shows that emotional highs have been around since the beginning and are not a new invention of the United States.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:15 am
There are assertive influences acting on the cup all the time (1 gravity 2 earth’s movement 3 weather) but they function too slowly for our senses to detect or are not obvious to us. The cup is already moving along with the earth, to make in move “more” we take our hand and move it. It seems to be still only because we don’t perceive the underlying motion.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:15 am
To wtexas,
I don’t normally respond to personal attacks, but the substance of your attacks were somewhat germain to the issue so I willgive you a response. All emotions are resonses, they come out of our feminine nature or the ME aspect of the personality. All emotions are of short duration and are fatigueing. We live in a society on an emotional high and it is self-destructing.
Love is not an emotion; it is a spiritual condition and one that few of us can maintain. Some might call that state tepid and sterile, but to those who live in it it is bliss. Thanks for the underhanded compliment, but I don’t live in that state, I still slop around with the sinners.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I think Elder George is a feminist in disguise, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, doing his best to prove their point. I have worked at a scientific research lab and received crank emails that read somewhat like this. Whenever someone starts dressing up a political agenda as a “scientific” inevitability or “the natural order of things”, there’s a problem brewing.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
I also have an objection to that way you take heat, light, and sound (which are pretty much black and white issues ie either there is light or there is not) and try to equate that that with people, making it seem as if human society should be ant-like, dronelike, and passionless. In fact ever since the dawn of man (Cain and Abel) us people have an amazing ability to become jealous, envious, angry, loving, passionate, and joyously happy. What a tepid, sterile world you must live in Sir.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:47 am
To wtexas,
All the motions that you describe are the result of assertive influences. I refered to the cup at one point, but I did mention nebulae and solar systems.
Nothing material lasts for ever, but principles do. I described a fundamental principle of the universe. If the cup corrodes or doesn’t in order for it to move it requires that an assertive influence acts ont it.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:40 am
The cup is sitting motionless on the table. Sir, can you please acknowledge that the reality is the cup, and everything on the Earth, is constantly in motion because the Earth is in fact moving. The cup “appears” to be motionless because we are moving along with it. It boils down to, as Einstein said, a matter of “relativity”. That is, relative to our attachment to the moving Earth the cup “appears” to be motionless in much the same way as you and I could sit “motionless” and have a conversation while traveling in a car doing 80 mph. One more thing: nothing lasts forever. Depending on what the cup is made of it would eventually corrode or break down due to oxygen and water vapor. I’m sorry to knit-pick little points like this but I really just don’t get your particular philosphy. I know you’re ultimately saying that God intended things this way, but God also made the universe to be incredibly complex (beyond our understanding actually). To me, the complexity of the universe shows the workings of God much more so than in the way you state your oversimplified active/passive theory.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:52 am
In the example of the cup-we’ve had this exchange before-you’ve omitted inertia, or at least failed to catagorize it. Is inertia an assertive force or is it receptive? The answer to that question impacts your whole derivation.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:30 am
On this topic, may I suggest reading Daniel Amneus. His insight into the truths of patriarchy that our government struggles to overthrow and conceal at our children’s expense was astounding.
For starters, see: The Case for Father Custody
at http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf