Decreased Inventiveness — A Symptom
As you sit in your chair and look around and take stock of the mechanical, electrical, and electronic products that you use on a daily basis and take for granted, you might realize that all of these things were a result of someone’s inventiveness. What you might not realize is that these products were invented a long time ago. The automobile, airplane, telephone, telegraph, radio, television, computer, jet propulsion, atomic power, radar, sonar, electric light, and refrigerator were all invented by 1950. In the more than half century that has elapsed since then, what has been invented? I have made a random sampling of people and not one person could name a conceptual invention that postdated 1950. Nor can I.
In the past half-century we have seen a decided drop in the influence of masculine conceptual thinking, with the result that true inventiveness has been replaced by adaptations. Eventually, we will run out of new, and adaptations won’t save the economy. That will be one of the causes of the breakdown of Western society.
Concurrent with the decline in conceptual thinking has been a decline in morality of all sorts, for morality as all else is derived from the unseen. Honor, truth, integrity, reliability, constancy, and standards of all sorts emanate from the conceptual thinking of the masculine gender. The emasculation of the male has resulted in a deterioration of standards with the result that the government has intruded into every facet of our personal lives in order to prevent complete chaos; however, it is losing that battle.
There is a natural way to live and our creator established it. Humankind has essentially two options, to understand the nature of creation and live in harmony with it, or to not understand it and live in disharmony with it. To live in harmony produces health, contentment and spiritual growth. To live in disharmony produces sickness, discontent, and spiritual stagnation. Our society has chosen the latter and devotes an increasing amount of its energies and money in attempts to “fix” the sickness and discontent it has created.
The government is going broke in attempts to “fix” our physical and mental health. According to the AMA the average person over 65 takes six to eight prescription medicines. I think the average person today at any age is on medication, if not for physical reasons then mental reasons inasmuch as the major health issue in America is mental illness. Our prisons are bursting with more waiting to get in as we attempt to “fix” our crime problem. We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. We are out of tune with the world and universe that we were designed to live in.
This out of tune stems from not adhering to the patriarchal structure that is natural to the universe. Instead of devoting our manhood to the care of the family and the tribe, we no longer have any manhood left to devote to anything. We have legislated away our inherent power and now we are impotent. Powerless. Frustrated. Angry.
The only way we can make change is to remove the coverings, barriers, and inhibitions that prevent us from conducting ourselves in a manly way. We can individually take action to free ourselves from our immediate suppression, but it will take a collective effort to bring about social change. But we have started. At least we now know that we are men. The next step is to realize our inherent power, and then do something with that power. The thing to do is to support this viewpoint and share it with anyone who will listen to you. You might be surprised at the number of people who will listen. You did.
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!
July 15th, 2007 at 7:24 am
To sc567,
Thanks for your comments. It’s comforting to have a cool hand aboard during rough seas.
Checked out you link and am interested. Please contact me through my website.
Concidentally I received an order from the Netherlands on Friday.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Before all hell breaks loose again about why spiritual is masculine and material feminine: maybe the drawings in this Dutch article (http://www.xs4all.nl/~hermio/adem/1-3-7.pdf) give some insight. It has helped me a lot.
Why isn’t it the other way around? Which of the two genders here has the ’seed’ which impregnates the ‘egg’ (the seen, the universe)?
Those needing some translations: ask me, I’m a native Dutch resident. Or consult http://babelfish.altavista.com/, I’m away for the day now.
Keep in mind something related: in yin is yang, and in yang is yin. They’re relatives, only applicable if at least two ‘things’ are ‘present’.
And why do we find so much ‘feminine’ characteristics in men nowadays? Consider the social engineering, huh? The concurrent social decline?
If the yin isn’t really yin (want’s to be or is encouraged to be yang), and the yang is forced to be yin…
And finally remember male/female and masculine/feminine aren’t synonymous, but analogous.
Sorry for unstructeredness, instead of unseen/seen, what about unmanifest/manifest, thought/deed.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:19 am
To wtexas,
Another of your comments addressed the lack of Muslim inventiveness. I am loath to classify people by religion, because it is so misleading. Sweden and Denmark classify as Christian nations, but only 4% of the people are churched. The fastest growth of Christianity in the last decade occurred in Southern Africa.
Likewise among Muslims, Tunisia and Morocco are more West that the West. The fertility rates of both countries have fallen below what is necessary to sustain them.
You probably mean the patriarchal structure of Asians. Extreme patriarchy does not focus on material invention. As Edith Hamilton wrote in her book, The Greek Way to Western Civilization, The Egyptians and Asians were “other worldly.” Their focus was on matters spiritual. What they needed was provided by God or could come from within. That was the teaching of Jesus; he fed the multitude from a few fish and loaves of bread, he had Peter walking on water, and told us that we could move mountains. All of this was done by the power of the unseen.
Who among us can move a mountain, boulder, rock, stone, pebble, or even a grain of sand? We can however, blow up mountains up can’t we? We have pursued a material direction instead of a spiritual direction, and we equate everything we do materially. We are also paying the price for that thinking.
July 15th, 2007 at 3:49 am
To wtexas,
I knew that you would be back, but I had to wait until the storm cleared to answer you. You are closer to understanding than you realize. The following paragraph was taken from a chapter from my manuscript Caesar is Coming.
“The term gender comes from the Latin root meaning to produce; for production or movement to take place in the universe an assertive influence must act 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. The receptive entity represents the feminine principle and the assertive influence represents the masculine principle. 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; a union of the masculine and feminine principles must take place, and this union creates a pregnancy. Everything seen in the universe came from a pregnancy.”
Now if we leave cups and go into any form of life, both the masculine and feminine principles are at work, but the masculine principle predominates in the male and the feminine principle predominates in the female. Two roosters cannot produce chicks anymore than two hens can. However, if the flock becomes large, and the hens say, “Look there are so many of us, we don’t need roosters anymore,” the flock will not only diminish in number but in structure—chaos will ensue. That is our present society.
The following was taken from my booklet 20th Century Decadence: 2500 years of Western Materialism:
“The Greeks served as the conduit between the Afro-Asian masculine thinking and the European feminine thinking. The early Greek scholars, such as: Thales, Anaximander, Anaxamenes, Anaxagoras, and Pythagoras, dealt with abstractions and concepts. Topics they addressed were the origin of all things, god is in all things, and mind controls matter. Pythagoras, whom we credit with the formula for determining the length of the sides of a right triangle, was a mystic. He introduced to Europe the knowledge of numerology which be obtained from the Chaldeans, and established a mystery school in Crotona, Italy. The thinking of these men was very abstract and therefore strongly masculine.
The later Greeks whom Western knowledge is more familiar with such as: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Ptolomy, Euclid, Epicures, Archimedes and Hero, dealt less in abstractions and more in material matters as time passed. Those whom we credit with conceptual thinking such as Ptolomy, Euclid, and Epicures, were all students of Afro-Asian learning. Euclid and Ptolomy had their headquarters in Alexandria, and Epicures’ mentor Democritus, traveled extensively in the East.
The Athenian Greeks were more mundane. Aristotle started the scientific approach of gathering materials, classifying and grading them. Archimedes is credited with two famous statements: the first “Eureka” when he discovered that a floating body displaces its weight in water, and the second “give me a fulcrum and a place to stand and I will lift the world,” when he discovered the principle for the operation of levers. By the time of Hero who in the first century invented the steam engine, conceptual masculine thought was gone from the Greeks and their thinking became completely Europeanized.”
There is very little taught in our society about the early Greeks because our society focuses on the material, it is imbalanced. We focus on the material and do not realize the material world that we have came from unseen thinking.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Look here, MMX; over here; not over there. Here. At MEeee!! This is a Brahma, Hahahahaha:
“Amfortas is one such person, because he first insists on a literal translation of “masculininty and femininity” – but then tempers Elder’s masculine thought with his own feminine need for (a) perfection, (b) security – of which a 100% provably perfect argument is one such manifestation, and (c) an uncanny need for attention, “Say Elder. Look at me! I’m amfortas! Look at me! Look at me! I’m using objections which twist your words, so that you’ll pay attention to the greatness with which I make these unnecessary, destructuve demands!” Either that or, “I’d love to have abeer with you. It’s the most clever thing I can say while i twist your ideas. Look at me!”
The end result of amfrotas’ line of reasoning is that no one can do anything new until amfortas gives permission. ”
MMX, If its my permission you need to be what you are and for what you want to say, you have it, for what it’s worth. I doubt anyone takes a blind bit of notice of what I say (OK maybe some do) but I don’t see a lack of people arguing with me. So I should just chuck the towel in? Do you want that I should just agree with you?
Not a chance, sunshine.
By the way, not only do I not ‘insist’ on a literal translation of masculine and feminine, I have neither offered on not seen anyone else offer one. I have sought from several people just what they mean by the terms, but few have told me. Some like EG seem to ascribe a lot to one or the other.
Perfection and security, eh? Don’t you go inventing anything, now, you are bound to overlook something and fail to copyright it with that attitude.
Beer? Take a powder.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Amfortas said: “Can brains make ideas? Do brains conceive ideas? Or do they receive ideas? In the quantum particle … all possibilities are said to exist. … All possibilities includes all possible conceptualities too. All possible ideas. … Ideas popping into mind?”
There is no such thing as a disembodied idea/thought. An idea or thought cannot exist outside the mind. So ideas don’t pop into it, like some kind of a disembodied spirit looking for a home.
Anyway, a lot of physicists nowadays are more philosophers than scientists, and they all like to pass their philosophies off as science. Since there is no end to philosophical debates, a lot of these ideas contradict each other, so this approach is not constructive.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:32 am
By the way, if you insult the “religion of peace” by calling it feminine, you might have to go into hiding like Salman Rushdie.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:27 am
MMX said: “The Middle East does not invent, because … their masculine energy is far from unfettered.”
If so, what is restraining it? It can’t be the women. It has to be the culture. Which, over there, means the religion more than anything else. So isn’t this saying Islam is feminine.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree. I’m just pointing out where this line of reasoning seems to lead.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
To EG and MMX: though we live on the same planet, we clearly don’t live in the same world. Everytime I read EG’s pieces I think of him as believing that Mayberry and the Cleaver family actually existed in reality. I’m a little more cynical than you guys.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
To #39-39 MMX,
Okay, EG’s message is very simple: that unfettered masculine thought is the ONLY naturally inventive form of thought which exists. Unfettered by what? by feminine restraint!
So please explain in SIMPLE terms why the Muslim culture, which seems to fit the criteria for unfettered masculine thought, does NOT seem to have “naturally inventive form of thought”
Because what I’m hearing is that because men in our society have been feminized they have lost the ability to invent, YET, when I present Saudia Arabia (where men rule and are hardly feminized, but are not inventive) as an example, EG gives me a verbal tap dance.
Question: (a) Since EG claims that we males are feminized, and because of this feminazation we (b) have lost our ability to invent new things, we only adapt existing technology, so then how do you explain (c) a culture where males are not feminized and despite this they also do not invent (Saudi Arabia, Iran etc)?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Occam’s Razor
This is what EG is applying. He is stripping away the irrelevant details and whats left is a core issue that is being addressed…..Look at the princepal concepts he is talking about and base arguments on this…..THEN we can have a discussion.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
wtexas – In case you couldn’t follow my points above, The Middle East does not invent, because their men are supposed to provide 100% for their women. When you define women are weak, helpless, and potentially dangerous – and then punish the MEN for their transgressions (loss of honor doesn’t only impact the women, but everyone close to her), then their masculine energy is far from unfettered.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
It’s impossible for a materialistc European mind – especially one which either (a) relies on empirical statistics, or (b) refuses to define gender traits as gender traits, to understand Elder’s message.
wtexas is one such person, because he sees it all as some grand cosmic cause and effect machine, “If men are given higher status, then they should automatically invent. Like…say….the Middle East?”
Amfortas is one such person, because he first insists on a literal translation of “masculininty and femininity” – but then tempers Elder’s masculine thought with his own feminine need for (a) perfection, (b) security – of which a 100% provably perfect argument is one such manifestation, and (c) an uncanny need for attention, “Say Elder. Look at me! I’m amfortas! Look at me! Look at me! I’m using objections which twist your words, so that you’ll pay attention to the greatness with which I make these unnecessary, destructuve demands!” Either that or, “I’d love to have abeer with you. It’s the most clever thing I can say while i twist your ideas. Look at me!”
The end result of amfrotas’ line of reasoning is that no one can do anything new until amfortas gives permission.
Mike LaSalle is also one such person, because he tempers Elder’s masculine message with (d) the deeply rooted sense that there are no such thing as great individuals anymore. “Elder, you have to use common methods!” was Mike’s most memorable quote. But common methods are only perfect for common results! (Those who wish for uncommon, or better-than-common results need not use common methods.)
Elder’s message is very simple: that unfettered masculine thought is the ONLY naturally inventive form of thought which exists. Unfettered by what? by feminine restraint!
Right now, masculine thought is so fettered by feminine ideals that very few men think masculinly. Off the top of my head, I can easily name the five most dangerous feminine fettering considerations
(1) materialism: The foolish feminine assumption that only that which can be statistically measured is worth discussing.
(2) niceness: The foolish feminine notion that all forms of passion are bad. (Think of it as The Inquisition applied to sociopolitical ideas. If you very passionately argue your points, that’s “proof” that your points are wrong, because, if they were right, you wouldn’t be so passionate about them.)
(3) non-competitiveness: Very closely related to niceness, this is the foolish feminine notion that points are non-competitive – that there’s no such things as: worse points and better points, or even the best point. (This is how infidel could post a very nice list of inventive factors, which could’ve been used to help all parents produce more inventive children, yet those who were so focused on proving that “women can invent” repeatedly ignored that list.
(4) emotionalism: The flipside of niceness. This forces people to assume that their ideas ought to be judged for the emotional reactiosn they produce in others, more so than for their creative potential.
(5) compassion for the weak: The corollary of non-competitiveness, this assumes that traditionally weaker ideas and/or groups can never offer inferior points.
For any person to become more inventive, he must free his own mind from the influence of the Five Feminine Fettering Influences. The people who have not done this will always argue against Elder’s message in a highly feminine way, which enables the masculine mind to quickly see these people for who they are. And since the opposite of inventiveness is “maintaining the status quo”, you can also infer which people are still under the grasp of the Feminine Fettering Influences by noticing how their arguments never ever NEVER lead to creative change.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Amfortas: here’s to England. Cheers, my British friend.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Over the years I’ve worked in places which were majority males, and other places where it was majority females. I can honestly say that both sexes can be catty, bitchy, and gossipy, with little difference in their application. I presently work with a small group of men in a job with lots of down time and boredom. Do you know what the main pasttime is? Its talking about whoever is not present. Every little detail about each other is grist for the mill. Hours have passed while the men have cackled like hens over the latest “scandel”. I don’t engage in the gossip. My attitude is BFD (big f**king deal). Consequently I am somewhat of an outcast, but I certainly don’t loose any sleep over this. I go to work each day confident that anything I do, anytime I fart or pick my ass, that this will be a topic of discussion by them.
I read EG’s material for a few years now, and I believe the only way for his ideas to work is if he and his followers set up their own private group. Like the Mennonites or the Amish. Men and women are essentially the same: ruled by greed, envy, and above all human psychology. The sexes differ in the way they express and realize themselves, but the central element is power and control. Men usually directly engage control, women are more subtle using verbal coercion (aka nagging).
As for inventiveness diminishing in our society because males have been diminished, well, I’ve used Sauda Arabia as an example to show that maleness might not be a factor. I do believe that inventiveness flourishes during times of war, when facing an enemy, and in times of great national optimism (such as the celebratory atmosphere after winning a war).
July 14th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Wtexas is (almost) on the nail. The discussion is getting bogeed down in He says, She says. WTF! By the way, ’silly’ is a very English dismissal rather than a feminine one. But I guess EG’s retort would be that England is ‘feminine’. The same England that set the standard for inventiveness and drove the whole Industrial Revolution virtually single-landedly. The mind boggles.
Yes, men invent more than women. Men conceptualise more than women. No conclusive stats on the matter, just an ‘intuitive’ ‘know’ about it. “Unseen” and frankly imaginary. To me, at least, the ‘unseen’ as a paradigm in EGs philosophy is very feminine. Much of EG’s mind-product seems feminine to me, but that’s just the way I hear him. Maybe Mike id picking up the same vibes.
It doesn’t help when EG uses ‘Real Men’ as a crutch for his arguement. Gordon friggin’ Bennett.
Unconsidered is the issue of beaurocracy. Most past inventions were concieved by individuals, mostly working quite alone. Now it is huge research labs populated by technically brilliantly educated nonentities who cannot tie their shoe laces without a government grant and three thousand memos.
Today, some – many – would dismiss Newton out of because he was an Alchmist. He also used herbal remedies and horoscopes. Very ‘feminine’. A creative nutter.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Wait one minute! DWG used the word “silly”. EG remarked on that word saying real men don’t use that, which angared Mike L.
I’m sorry, I thought this was MENS news daily.
Get off the estrogen, fellas, and grow some thick skin. Not getting your panties tied in a knot over insults/put downs is precisely one of the big differences which seperates the gents from the dames.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
sc567 Thank you for saying that….the island was getting lonely.
Amazing to me was also Mike calling DW2G an informed critic after having tossed him a few months back.
The Bible talks about doublemindedness.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I also completely fail to see E.G.’s ‘misandy’.
What I see is a man acting directly, maybe causing some negative emotions temporarily, but with the ultimate goal of improving!
Consider the negative emotion fear (not so much anxiety) in particular.
It’s there to help you save your life in really serious situations. Think about it!
July 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I felt more attacked as a man, more misandry if you will, from the snide generalities in Joys counter than I ever have from EG. Do not lump me as some mindless automoton with regard to EG’s writing. He knows better also. But to call it misandry is beyond me.
Are you a navy seal mike?
July 14th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
This is not the first time EG has played the “real man” card. It issues from his keyboard with the ease and frequency of an arch misandrist.
Of all the writers and commenters present on this site in almost six years of operation, I have never seen anyone go for the nuts as quickly and as perfunctorily as our own EG.
Itchy finger? Hardly. I have enormous tolerance for a wide variety of views and I rarely butt-in even when I disagree.
But bold misandry pisses me off big time.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
To Mike lasalle,
My comment #13 answered Dadwith2girls question.
My comment #14 had nothing to do with my answer and that is why I made it separate.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Mike:
Perhaps petty difference, but he didn’t accuse him of not being a real man for disagreement, he did it for saying silly, which is a word I use often as i find it occasionally uniquely descriptive.
Regardless the adjective, what if I simply posted “silly, stupid, ridiculous, etc.” to each post I didn’t like? Is that substantitive? Would you call me on it?
Or better, what about someone becoming completely unhinged and hysterical, calling out references and inferences less credible than 9/11 was an inside job?
Is that better?
Ive no intention of revisiting the debate, but thurston would have been deleted for what Joyanna wrote in her final post. Nearly every man on the forum was included in her ire and there were dots connected where the dots didn’t even exist, let alone the connections. Navy Seals and murder threats? Geez. Where was the itchy finger?
July 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Accusing someone of not being a “real man” because he disagrees with you is an inherently sly and underhanded shaming tactic long used by those who seek power over other men. EG – perhaps owing to his particular generational mindset – seems very at home with this well-worn brand of misandry.
Misandrists – regardless of their sex or age – will receive no quarter from me.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Now that Mike has the Misandry and Misogyny adherents on opposite sides of the room we can begin the discussion.
Mike:
1. Down with EG’s inventiveness or not, I’ve rarely been impressed with an argument that says, “hey you offer no evidence therefore your argument is stupid”.
Now, demonstrably inaccurate is a start, so lets demonstrate. Because I am asking for back-up doesn’t mean that I am taking the extreme other side, it means that your words Mike seem to reflect back upon your words…if that makes sense.
2. See 1.
3. What criticism is there to directly address? In fact I could make a case that attacking the word silly was a direct addressing of the criticism, because that was the depth of the criticism. Come on Mike, cut and paste a sentence then say it is silly and call that criticism that can be addressed? What is your axe looking to grind here?
But the utmost was that you then went on to chide the use of “real men”….immediately following getting defensive about EG’s complaint about the word silly. The difference in those thought processes is?…..
Mike I’ve seen you chime about many posts here, and often well into the depth of comment, but other than sarcastically refering to EG’s ubiquitous calls to action, what exactly is troubling you? It is unlike you to address a debate where one post calls another silly or similar superficial things.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
The following conceptual (?) inventions occurred since 1950:
Warp drive, dilithium crystals, the cloaking device, light sabers, R2D2, Spock’s ears, and the Vulcan salute.
We still need to work out the details on some of these, but the concept is there.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Silly is as silly does…
In reference with EG’s article above, DadWith2Girls said (comment 4):
Petulant, petty and defensive as ever, EG responded in comment 14:
Huh.
Let’s review:
1. EG makes a dizzy and demonstrably inaccurate argument regarding the supposed “decreased inventiveness” of the west.
2. DadWith2Girls sums up the article with,”Eventually, we will run out of new, and adaptations won’t save the economy,” and rightly points out that this argument is just plain “silly”. (He could have used a more forceful word like “stupid” or “ignorant”, but – just to soften the blow – he chose a relatively benign word to describe his reaction)
3. Instead of addressing the criticism directly, (eg., “I didn’t say that, I said this.”), EG drops his always thin pretense of reason, and simply bleats that “real men” would not use the word “silly”. Hurrumph.
In my experience, the only people nowadays who use the convenient term “real men” as an elocutionary whipping post are FEMINAZIS and their fellow travelers.
No, EG. You are dead wrong – and I dare say MISANDRIC – to continue the drumbeat of “real men” this and “real men” that in your arguments.
And to deprive an informed critic like DadWith2Girls of his status as a “real man” because he said your argument was “silly” – is out-and-out misandry.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
To wtexas,
A good point. In my writings I indicate that Asia represents the masculine principle and Europe the feminne principle. The feminine principle materializes and personalizes the concepts of the masculine principle.
It is natural that Euorpe is the source of most inventiveness. However, within each culture, whether Asian, European, or African, the assertive influence will always be the masculine principle. In Europe and the West by extension, the value structure is female, therefore masculine efforts will revolve around the creation of material things. We know the West for the material things it has produced, not for an understanding of patriarchy, or things metaphysical. However, if within that structure the male begins losing his virility, he will no longer be able to initiate the inventiveness.
You have never heard me say that one culture is better than another or that one gender is better than another. The issue in the West and now the world is the imbalance of gender. The actual belef that men have become superflous.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
wtexas you have an interesting point, but I think by accident. EG never said what your premise is based upon. However, it does beg a different question that likely occurs to most men here who read these articles, that being about “western thought”
I’d have to submit that it has to be masculine thinking combined with western thinking that results in inventiveness.
Don’t offer me Japan…that too is western thought.
EG, is inventiveness a good thing?
July 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
To EG,
The Muslim culture places men at the forefront in society. According to you we should be seeing inventivenes there because only valued men can invent. Yet, an observer of that culture would not see an aboundance of inventiveness.
Therefore please revise/amend your theory to expand the definition of invention so that it includes beheadings, terrorism, and the inventive use of dynamite and other explosives.
Or perhaps what you are trying to say is that only males who are Christian and Caucasian (white) have the capacity for invention.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Elder George said,
to Infidel,
“In order to bring a concept into being the material ability must be available to do so…Now that masculine thinking has been suppressed we are relying upon adaptation to what has already been developed
Women nurture children, but inorder to have more the male must become involved. We leave in a society that increasingly feel the male is unnecessary. Without males no children, without males no conspetual inventions.”
The Islamic/Muslim culture has men at the top and women in subservient roles. The least of men is still more valued than the strongest woman. According to your theory, we should be seeing a deluge of inventiveness from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Clearly, having males valued at the top of the food chain is not a clear indication of inventiveness.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I see we are straining at a gnat here.
Well at least it has not evolved into a camel awallowing session, thus the Men are talking here.
Ok, the notion of inventiveness is the notion of an outward manifestaion of healthy masculine thought that no other species can produce. A purely human action.
If masculine thought is gone certainly women do not need men, except to make them feel dominated and out of control in a fantasy of a sexual encounter al la a romance novel they read. For soon they will make sperm from stem cells thus we will not be needed even for procreation.
Even lacking a further need of men for procreation, what does man bring to society?
Elder makes the point without asking the question to get to the principle…the masculine principle.
inventiveness that is Ford forbid! found mostly in males! (what are all of those jokes about Appalachian engineering and duct tape as the solution of necesity (sp) about women? NO they are about men!)
So it is Man who is immediately and naturally masculine in thought…well he once was until media and feminism got a hold of him.
Wait, I know, we should forget about the abubdance of natural masculine resource, get rid of men and wait for the .01 percent of women to invent for humanity.
So what we are committing genocide against the only carriers of the Y chromosome!
July 14th, 2007 at 8:45 am
I use the word “silly” all the time when talking to my kids. To suggest that the use of the term ’silly’ is not for ‘real men’ is….well, silly.
Silly, silly, silly. And getting sillier still.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am
ummmmm yeah fellas…ok,,,
I don’t do high either but this drivel make me wonder if I should.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:03 am
To condervativation,
We won’t have to see THE new invention. We will expeience a new awarenes of unseen forces. Once this is experienced there will be an IDEA for the new. Then if there is sufficient virility, the IDEA will be brought into reality.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:30 am
I don’t know about the exact dates, nor could I quote the lineage of a list of inventions someone may post, and I do not see this being THE catalyst of societal collapse, but in general this seems to be correct about adaptations.
However this to me is one of those points without corresponding action available. I’m not sure that we would suddenly begin inventing at a different pace due to a return of masculine thought. This says nothing about the idea of masculine inventiveness but everything about inventive saturation.
Before a new surge or real inventiveness occurs we’d have to see THE new invention. It will be something again revolutionary from which other ideas will spring, because we can only refine so far, and are limited by our current understanding of natural laws.
The chimera of perpetual motion, or perhaps light speed travel, could those be next? What about zero point energy? Is alchemy still a discipline?
BigPapa…I don’t do “high”.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:36 am
to Dadwith2girls,
Silly is a frequently used term by women; real men rarely use it in their discourse.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:18 am
to Dadwithe2girls,
One of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Sunion is that their ability to produce new decreased. They are now a third world country. Necessity creates change only if you have a healthy and viril society capable of making that change. We have lost our proportion in the West. There are those who actually belive men are suerfluous. Their world is crumbling around them and they do not “see” why.
Nothing inthe universe just happens. All assertion comes from the masculine principle, there is no place else for it to come from.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:52 am
to Infidel,
In order to bring a concept into being the material ability must be available to do so. It was not available at the time of Christ. Hero invented steam power around that time, but there wan’t anything to hook it to. The industrial revolution had a mating of material means with coneptual thinking. That is a coopertive gender effort. Now that masculine thinking has been suppressed we are relying upon adaptation to what has already been developed
Women nurture children, but inorder to have more the male must become involved. We leave in a society that increasingly feel the male is unnecessary. Without males no children, without males no conspetual inventions.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:03 am
Good question infidel. I believe that Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose have an answer to that in their paper, “Orchestrated Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtububles. A Model for Consciousness”. It was presented at the First Tuscon Conference on Consciousness a few years ago.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:20 am
The human brain consists of probably billions of neurons. Each neuron is itself highly complex. Unbelievably complex.
Even with all this complexity, we can only think of one thing at a time.
How can a single particle make a new thought pop into our minds, when each thought requires many many neurons working together?
July 14th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Invention is a funny old thing. They seem to emerge when the conditions are right for them to appear. They come into the mind of a few and spread like crazy. Sometimes they are a bit before their time. All, always, depend on a few minds. Focused ones. Open ones. Intelligent ones. Observant ones. The ones that can connect many things, ideas, concepts, desires and drives together.
When the telephone was invented it was expected that its main function would be to permit people to listen to concerts. Piped music on the telephone took a hundred years to catch on and now every kid has music coming out of his/her phone. Crap mostly.
Where do inventive ideas, or any ideas for that matter, come from? As ‘masculinity’ is a derivative function of sexual reproductivity, it seems an unlikely source. Most male animals don’t invent and they are ‘masculine’ Try telling a male lion he isn’t. Or a bull elephant. Females neither.
Just the human animal. Humans are the only inventors. Maybe its bipedalism? Nah! Some other apes walk upright too. Having hands? Maybe something there. But…hands generate ideas? Nah, not credible. Brains, perhaps. A more likely instrument to me. The human Brain is quite unique in the animal world. Sure there are similarities and parts of it found in lower animals, but not the fully formed super-brain of the human.
But can brains make ideas? Do brains conceive ideas? Or do they receive ideas? Consistent with the times? Or the demands of the times. Maybe. One can see the plausibility of neccessity for conception. But then what of the inventions that were before their time. (Go on, make a list). Unecessary, they came along anyway.
In the quantum particle, before it stands to be seen, all possibilities are said to exist. Its superpositionability ‘collapses’ under specific conditions of containmant revealing one of the many possibles as the momentary ‘real’. All possibilities includes all possible conceptualities too. All possible ideas.
The microtubuals of the axonal shaft in a human brain have a central space just wide enough for a particle and part of that particle’s electromagnetic field. The quantum particle and its field cannot quite fit and remain in a quantum state, so it collapses, constrained and contained.
Ideas popping into mind?
July 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
EG said: “In the past half-century we have seen a decided drop in the influence of masculine conceptual thinking, with the result that true inventiveness has been replaced by adaptations.”
Between the time of Christ (or even earlier) and the Industrial Revolution there were relatively few inventions. Then, suddenly, there were many inventions. Now, according to EG, since 1950, there have been fewer “conceptual” inventions due to a drop in the influence of masculine thinking.
Are we to believe there was a sudden increase in masculine thinking at the time of the Industrial Revolution?
July 13th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Yo Big Daddy not eveyone is supposed to get it!
Shuttle is a lifting body designed in the 50’s, flash drives are chips which are teh next stage beyond IC’s IC’s next stage beyond transistors.
Mars rover, remote controlled car.
Mouse outdated crap.
Sats are the 50’s sputnik
Internet humm I have to ask AlGore.
Now the Laser……
July 13th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
EG said: “I have made a random sampling of people and not one person could name a conceptual invention that postdated 1950. Nor can I.”
What about these: satellites, the internet, web pages, the space shuttle, flash drives, the computer mouse, the laser, the mars rover, the integrated circuit, the microprocessor, magnetic resonance imaging scanner (MRI).
EG, I agree with many of your points. But I still think there is a lot of inventiveness going on.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
what the hell are you trying to say thurston?????
and conservation,,,, did I miss the punch line?????
are you guys high or what ????
I know I’m not..
July 13th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Eventually, we will run out of new, and adaptations won’t save the economy.
That is really funny!
Running out of things has been the actual “mother of invention” since cave men could no longer find enough mastodons and saber-toothed tigers to hunt and kill and eat! (For supporting their families …. the Evil Patriarchy’s genesis.)
This is a beyond-silly argument.
Unconfirmed by 40,000 years of homo sapiens history.
I could write more.
It would be futile….
July 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I wish I could speak freely.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
SK can you look forward to move forward?
That is the point in this one.
Plainly we cannot define manhood by the Playboy lifestyle that was recognized for waht it was Playboy, Aristocharcy, materialsim that draw courtesans.
We cannot define manhood by the prior man hood of the 40’s and 50’s that failed to teach the lack of masculinity of the Materialistic Fem Worship Playboy life.
We cannot define Manhood by the generation who could not wait to get back to America and get some industrial products after having nothing in the Depression.
We cannot define manhood by the Generation of Prohibition and the 19th Amendment, for they failed to hold the line against the Marxist Materialists at the gate.
I am not going to cover another generation and have to agree with Elder about Western Aristocracy. They gave it a good shot but the slavish materialist Tories wiped those men out.
So here we are, there is eitehr moving forward or standing still.
I give away Elder’s Books. One guy read it in 12 hours covering the door of a Bar in KV, then the bouncer next door asked him what he was reading. So he read to the guy and he wanted to arm wrestle him for the book right then and there.
On guy returned the book I just gave him, he is suffering from surgical grad roids, spitting up blood from stomach ulcers, now his brother has testicular cancer.
How you think he is handling things being locked into a 50K a year job taking home $1500 a month because he is stashing money in a 401K plan that will cost him more in taxes when he gets it out when he is 68 years old. He plays video games to get to level 50 of 70 in Warcraft while on the job working on people’s computers, and he is all stressed out.
The guy just got the job, he is not even 28 years old and he has diseases of a 58 year old exec.
Which is it going to be SK, are you in?
July 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
as the men of the 70’s and 80’s partied and drank themselves into political apathy, the feminist noose kept getting tighter and tighter on each new generation of young men.