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have seen a decided drop in the influence of masculine conceptual thinking, with the result that true inventiveness has been replaced by adaptations.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 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Honor, truth, integrity, reliability, constancy, and standards of all sorts emanate from the conceptual thinking of the masculine gender.
These concepts, as we know them today, came from protestant Christians. However, the secular, and the humanists, would love them to be some natural part of something. In this case “maleness”, which is very untrue, and all it is what those in the past call a vanity.
Truth got its start as we know it from Plato, and other great philosophers of the past. It died when the modern philosphers, with political agendas built in, killed it with relativism. Its these that we follow now, thanks to the work of the Frankfurt school, and men like adorno, and marcuse.
Reliability can Constancy, even in that order can be quoted in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. However, these two things are conservative doctrines, and have been extinct since the social revolution. For one cant be constant if one is a trollop, an adventurer, and a selfish get.
These ideas were conceptualized by men, but I will point out that they were conceptualized under religion. That they stem and come whole from the concepts premises in Christian faith, which everyone took up without the source (at least in the west).
The key to our having all around us is not that men were inventive more than women, but that religious men wanted to know god, and had no way to get closer to him than to examine what they presumed to be his work. All of reality.
I will agree that we are becoming blind to abstract and invisible value, but that’s only because the secular can only measure what they believe is real. and they cant come up with the math that can convince them that the way we used to act, polite, helpful, etc, is a benificient way to go about things.
And the nail that closes that coffin is that they cant see that these ideas are for the long term benefit, vs the short term benefit.
The secular, the atheists, and such cant see past their life times. They don’t believe past their lifetimes, despite any lip service they may use. the world is studded with gothic cathedrals, some taking half a millinium to create. Give me one secular enterprise that lasts like that? even the united states, born in the ideals of religion (“endowed by their creator”), is falling apart when that glue is no longer there.
Why should a secular person have children? PROVE that having them is better than not having them. Your arguments will be about everything else except for the person who creates them. So the secular don’t have them in great numbers.
Why should a secular person invent? You might say that if he does the world gets better. but the secular will snap back and say, what about nuclear bombs, what about this, or that, etc. they will not side with you that inventions are needed. They will even push you aside and say that its better to be the person that uses inventions than the person that invents. Just look at the history of those that invented! Here on these pages, you disparaged a womans invention, even though at the time, and around her, the people gave HER credit. Any secular worth his salt will tell you… why should I invent if I am going to get treated the way you treated her!
Even now, as we get more secular, we give less money from the state towards pure science!!! remember, that it was the church that did the early science work. it was the realization of the premise that if the world was created by god, then if you study the world you are studying the product of that force.
It was precisely the concept of creationism that gave birth to its own demise!!!!
And its precisely the death of creationist concepts that the secular look at the world. To make this clear, you can see it in the challenge that the bible is a book made by men. but their argument leaves out that the men, the pages, the ink, and everything that lead up to it was credited to god. In their view the bible is a thing that some claim is made by god that exists in something that is not made. In the view of the religious, the bible and everything is made by that force, and that discovering how everything is made gets you closer to that force. The arguments of creationism and such are really the argument between everything being plopped down in one place as it is, and everything that exists blossoming out from a set of universal premises. This is why the catholic church doesn’t side with the creationists! After all, it was the catholic churches realization that everything is a work of god, and then promoting science to know, over populist philosophical arguments that settled that long ago. The backlash from literal creationists is a backlash against this. against the truth that came after the plop theory of creation, and before the removal of god because he didn’t plop it all down at once!!!
Right now, in the past few months in science and other mags they are asking the question whether pure science should be funded.
And true to form, we have been removing the funding for that, in favor of socialist go good programs.
And you can go to the lemelson area of mit… and their ideas of creating inventions believes that the group think model works best… even a recent science article promoted the idea that a large group think of agents can do the same thing as a creative person (more and more creative ways to make marx right no matter how wrong he was).
Thank someone that the person that wrote the article wasn’t group think oriented… they pointed out that in the battle between the chess god and 50,000 agents, the chess god won… and that it would be much more expensive to have to set up 50,000 plus agents to not reach the same level as the one man!!!!!!!!!!
Ack… go to go… its late, I have to meet my wife…
Sorry…
Durn it!!!
July 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
To wtexas & infidel,
I am pleased to explain my viewpoint to anyone who shows interest; however, if they are just interested in poking holes in it I see no purpose in accommodating them. I’m not running for office and don’t need to prove anything. I felt the two of you were interested, as did others, and during the past two days at least a half dozen people have been explaining things to you on this blog site and on the one I posted this morning, yet you have not indicated that you learned anything from anyone. That being the case, why continue?
I don’t visit the blog sites of those whose writings I disagree with except for occasional curiosity. Why waste their time and mine? They do likewise.
I’m not responding to anymore of your questions until I sense a shift in interest.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I admit I haven’t read every comment up until now (the totality of them is a bit dizzying to me), but I did get about halfway through them before deciding to chime in.
This last weekend I attended the Men’s Equality Conference in Washington, D.C. One presentation was done by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, authors of Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry. Nathanson began their presentation by talking about the differences between males and females in terms of their “rites of passage” into manhood and womanhood. He pointed out that, historically, males’ rites of passage have been much more rigorous and distinct than those of females. In older cultures, men have been sent off to hunt, have had to endure painful or dangerous rituals and tests, have had to overcome some challenge. Today, men register for military conscription. They put their personal safety on the line in defense of their loved ones. They continue to embrace the provider role (despite female reentry into the workplace). Societal expectation upon males to be protectors (risking their lives) and providers (expending their time and effort) takes the form of a rite of passage, in my opinion. One additional “rite of passage” is the conformity to societal perceptions of what constitutes “maleness.” To fail at that rite of passage (or any other) is perceived as a male “not being a real man.” It’s the failure to conform to an externally-imposed standard that results in the designation of a male as “not being a man.”
I would counter that the only fair “rite of passage” that distinguishes a real man from a boy is a mental state of mind. That state of mind is the one that says, “I refuse to substitute the judgment of others for my own judgment. I have a mind and I will use it, and will not be shamed into suppressing my ability to decide what is best.” To be a real man, then, is to reject anyone else’s prescription for what constitutes “real man,” and instead to pursue that which conforms to your values, your reason, and your independent judgment.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
wtexas — “Now if someone wants us to use a system where we use some kind of instinctive knowledge, then what you would have is men acting however they wanted, and you can’t tell them they are wrong because their “inner knowledge” says it is so.”
This makes no sense. If Nature exists to arbitrate between effective and ineffective approaches, then how can people “just do whatever they want”? The only way this makes sense is when you remove Nature’s arbitration from the picture.
“Therefore, Joe can beat his wife because his “unseen inner knowledge” says its the right thing to do, and Dan can burn his competitors house for the same reason.
Okay, so first you tell me that I’m a Martha Stewart clone, and then you say that Elder supports wife-beating and house-burning? And when we point out that, in the absence of ANY evidence,these accusations are childish and weak, who’s being unreasonable?
Why pay lip-service to logic and reason when you’re firing out these highly illogical and unreasonable accusations?
“When you base your actions on subjective “unseen inner knowledge” then you’re going to get different behavior at different times by different men under different circumstances because each man will interpret what he feels differently.”
But Nature will arbitrate which of these “subjective” approaches is most effective. But, if some approaches are clearly superior to others, how subjective can they be?
“Cause it’s SUBJECTIVE, based on what you FEEL, nobody can say that anyone is wrong unless you are a mind reader and know that Joe is lying.”
Saying that Joe is wrong can either be based on the SOCIAL perspective (You’re wrong, because the majority says you’re wrong) or on the NATURAL perspective (You’re wrong, because Nature doesn’t respect your approaches.)
Who removed the Natural approach? Not Elder.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
infidel — “His trick is to lure people in by saying they will be more masculine if they take his goofy approach, which he won’t admit is a religion.”
Why is it goofy? Does it fail to make a man more masculine? And why is it a religion?
You seem to be asserting ideas that you have no interest in proving.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Actually, I think Dr Laura explains yin/yang the best. She says that morality and gender roles are spelled out in the Bible. In black and white. We base our moral and ethical system on the Bible and use that as a reference to determine crimes, punishments, etc.
Now if someone wants us to use a system where we use some kind of instinctive knowledge, then what you would have is men acting however they wanted, and you can’t tell them they are wrong because their “inner knowledge” says it is so. Therefore, Joe can beat his wife because his “unseen inner knowledge” says its the right thing to do, and Dan can burn his competitors house for the same reason.
When you base your actions on subjective “unseen inner knowledge” then you’re going to get different behavior at different times by different men under different circumstances because each man will interpret what he feels differently. And, because its SUBJECTIVE, based on what you EEL, nobody can say that anyone is wrong unless you are a mind reader and know that Joe is lying.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:52 am
EG said: “Christ did not perform miracles to prove who he was. He didn’t have to prove anything to anybody.”
Wrong.
“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.” (John 10:37).
Anyway, I won’t debate religion because I think that’s a waste of time and is not what this site is all about. I just wanted to know what we were dealing with here. And what EG is offering is Eastern religious philosophy.
His trick is to lure people in by saying they will be more masculine if they take his goofy approach, which he won’t admit is a religion.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Christ did not perform miracles to prove who he was. He didn’t have to prove anything to anybody. He did what he did to show you what you can do if you had even a little understnding of the unseen.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:30 am
To explain Christianity further: Christ performed miracles to prove he was God. Since he was the Creator, he has superior knowledge of truth. Therefore, he simply told us (revealed) what we can’t otherwise know.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Infidel — “In Christianity, truth *is* provable. You quote Christ, but Christ offered miracles as proof he was the Messiah. Therefore you are misapplying the words of Christ in order to support your competing Eastern approach to “Truth”
Yet Christ also got very frustrated with those people who asked Him to “show us a sign”.
In Christianity, the Truth of every individual’s relationship with God is between God and that Individual. The Church (the social aspect) is considered far secondary.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:25 am
wtexas — “And how convenient that you decide which questions are deemed “ineffective”"
Not at all! If we’re discussing gender, which is a natural construct, then the use of social constructs will never work. Gender and nature define which methods of investigation are ineffective, not Elder, nor me.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:25 am
EG said: “That’s a loaded question because the definition of those three terms varies and are essentially Western concepts.”
EG, by trying to dodge my question, I think you have answered it. You are promulgating an Eastern philosophy/religion. Your dodge is to reject the “Western” concept that religion, science, and philosophy are distinct and relatively easy to define.
You said: “Have you ever heard the saying, ‘You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free?’ Truth is not provable infidel, it is understood. I can’t embellish that. You’re looking for proof and I can’t give it to you.”
In Christianity, truth *is* provable. You quote Christ, but Christ offered miracles as proof he was the Messiah. Therefore you are misapplying the words of Christ in order to support your competing Eastern approach to “Truth”.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:24 am
To wtexas and infidel,
Western education believes it can pour knowledge into you. It cannot. It does not deal in knowledge—it deals in information. Information is how to bake a cake or construct a bridge. It is material and provable. Our time is called the “information age,” it is not called the knowledge age or the truth age. It does not even know what truth is.
I make few attempts at pouring information into you; I work at extracting knowledge out of you. The knowledge is already in you; your creator placed it there.
I recommend you read my article Cubists, which can be found on my website under Men’s Action news.
Western man is always developing theories because he does not know the truth, and is always making studies because he has no understanding.
The truth is within you. Look for it.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Not at all! But I am saying that certain forms of questioning will be 100% ineffective. To rely on these ineffective methods is unreasonable. If it doesn’t work, and will never work, why do it at all?
………………………………………………………………………………….
And how convenient that you decide which questions are deemed “ineffective”.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:08 am
wtexas — ” Well it’s funny then, because I’ve always believed that “clear definations” was along the lines of being a man and having a male mind.”
If gender is a natural concept, not a socially constructed one, where do definitions fall in? Definitons involve people arguing, while turing away from the natural world, about the nature of what they study. Hence, “clear definitions” of what gender really is, falls under the “socially constructed” method – which doesn’t work.
“Now what you are saying is that us men should not question, that we should be satisfied with flowery, vague, nuanced statements, and that we are wrong to apply logic and reason to these matters.”
Not at all! But I am saying that certain forms of questioning will be 100% ineffective. To rely on these ineffective methods is unreasonable. If it doesn’t work, and will never work, why do it at all?
“You Sir are the new-age male analog of Martha Stewart.”
Wouldn’t it be more honest and reasonable to meet me first, to ask me questions, before you state such inane accusations?
July 16th, 2007 at 10:51 am
To infidel,
That’s a loaded question because the definition of those three terms varies and are essentially Western concepts.
Have you ever heard the saying, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free?” Truth is not provable infidel, it is understood. I can’t embellish that. You’re looking for proof and I can’t give it to you.
I can keep giving you examples that will massage your consciousness and then you will say to yourself I see it. Or a part of it, or more than EG sees. We all have a glimpse of the truth but no one sees it all. I espouse that portion of the truth that I am able to see.
Whatever truth you understand cannot be effectively challenged by others and cannot make you feel insecure, because you “know” it, not believe it.
Ther are some who now supprot my vews but who thought I was “‘off the wall” six months ago. I didn’t prove anything to them. They reached certain realizations on their own.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:51 am
To MMX. Well it’s funny then, because I’ve always believed that “clear definations” was along the lines of being a man and having a male mind. Its stereotypical but prevalent enough in society to have merit. Boys play rough, they play with tanks and toy guns, and they play in teams, get into fistfights, and eat bugs. Grown men aspire to be logical, brave, intelligent, are expected to know how to fix home repairs, change the oil in the care, fix the computer, read a map, and face problems directly and head on. What they are NOT expected to do is: cry at sad movies, fall apart during a crises, sit around with their friends over coffee and wax poetic about losing weight and how great everyones hair looks, and they are not expected aspire to have the home decor sense o Martha Stewart.
Now what you are saying is that us men should not question, that we should be satisfied with flowery, vague, nuanced statements, and that we are wrong to apply logic and reason to these matters.
You Sir are the new-age male analog of Martha Stewart. You want us sitting here quietly sipping tea while our heads fill with concepts that, when we need explanation, we are told ” the demand for certain types of proof (like materialistic evidence and clear definitions) will kill the understanding – not foster it.”
What a totally feminine answer. Are you a speech writer for the N.O.W.? Perhaps EG should commission you to draw a Harlequin Romance type cover for his next book.
Oh, and thanks Martha MX for that story about the biker in your band, you sound like a teenage girl with a crush on him.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:47 am
infidel — “Philosophy uses reason. Science relies on materialistic evidence. Both require clear definitions.”
Is it reasonable to demand materialistic proof from someone who swears that it will not work? Is it reasonable to demand “clear definitions” right after you’re told that they, too, will not work?
“Here is a question for EG: Are your beliefs a philosophy, a science, a religion, or a mixture of the three?”
The oldest religion is Hinduism. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, Hinduism isn’t founded on the words of a leading figure. Instead, you’re supposed to find a Yogi, a man who understands the spirit world and isn’t trying to start a major religion from his understanding.
i’ll let elder answer your question, though.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am
MMX said: “…the demand for certain types of proof (like materialistic evidence and clear definitions) will kill the understanding – not foster it.”
Philosophy uses reason. Science relies on materialistic evidence. Both require clear definitions.
In the West, religion is based on revelation from a Greater Power.
Eastern religion, which I don’t know much about, is different from Western religion.
Besides reason (logic), material evidence, and revelation, what other types of proof are there?
Here is a question for EG: Are your beliefs a philosophy, a science, a religion, or a mixture of the three?
July 16th, 2007 at 9:23 am
infidel – “We seek (or demand) proof.”
Fine, but certainly not fair. After all, Elder has very consistently warned people that his ideas cannot be understood through materialistic proof. So Elder says, “Materialistic proof won’t work!” Yet you demand it anyway. And then you imply that this is all Elder’s fault? But wait, who demanded what from whom?
Just as he has also said that “clear definitions” won’t work either. Yet the Objectioners demand them anyway, and posit that this is all Elder’s fault. Is it?
infidel – “Is EG positing that he is correct, without having to meet the demand for proof”
Yes….and no. No, because he doesn’t want to be blindly followed. Yes, because he insists that the demand for certain types of proof (like materialistic evidence and clear definitions) will kill the understanding – not foster it.
(It’s even worse that the people who make the message-killing demands take no responsibility for these demands.)
July 16th, 2007 at 9:02 am
The Biker Lead Guitarist for my band read his book.
Agreed with it immediately.
This is a man who would kill just as fast as he will curse, jsut to make life simpler.
That is a Man of Action.
He get’s it.
I need no more proof.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:42 am
MMX said: “But when you demand that Elder ‘clearly define’ his concepts, you’re making the demands! And you’re positing that, ‘If Elder cannot meet my demands, then Elder is wrong!’.”
We seek (or demand) proof. If EG cannot provide proof (or at least stronger arguments) for his week points, then we have no reason to believe those points, even if they are correct.
Is EG positing that he is correct, without having to meet the demand for proof?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:07 am
MMX, reality check. Hello. Is that MacGyver’s script writer in your pocket or are you on the happy pills.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Quoth an Objectioner, “Yet, EG’s writings seem to indicate that masculine = male and feminine = female. His group trys to have it both ways.”
That’s odd. The Objectioners seem to be making all of the demands, not Elder.
Elder says that the masculine and feminine forces are unseen, so an Objectioner first demands a concrete example (of something seen!) and then says, “Since Elder cannot comply to my demands, then Elder is wrong.”
MMX says that inventiveness is adaptive, flexible, and non-definable. Think MacGyver! Does he know, at minute 10 of any episode, how he’ll escape the situation he’ll find himself in at minute 55? Or does he creatively synthesize the materials that surround him into a unique siolution?
Furthermore, if you ask MacGyver to write down all of the uses for: a paper clip, a wad of chewing gum, a plastic checker, and so on, he’d probably do this. But will his gigantic list of information get you out of a jam? Or would you need his masculine spirit and experience to guide you out?
There’s a difference between knowledge, which Elder preaches, and information, which his Objectioners praise. Knowledge is living, adaptive, and inventive, while information is cold, dead, and unchanging. Information tries to understand MacGyver by writing down everything he has ever done.
This approach clearly works when you find yourself in an identical situation from MacGyver’s past, but it cannot adapt to a never-before-seen situation.
But when you demand that Elder “clearly define” his concepts, you’re making the demands! And you’re positing that, “If Elder cannot meet my demands, then Elder is wrong!”
July 16th, 2007 at 5:29 am
To Amanda,
Your comment #73 is straightforward and reasonable. But there is an “unseen” reason why they don’t move on.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:25 am
I do encourage all having problems with all this stuff to read of all E.G.’s stuff here on MND:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/elder-george/ (or http://mensaction.mensnewsdaily.com/)
and his website: http://mensaction.net/ thorougly and multiple times.
Then (or before) get a feel and understanding of the yin/yang concept from other sources. In EG’s writing (actually all correct writings) yin corresponds with feminine, yang with masculine.
In between I personally have tought/’meditated’ about it like while doing a bike ride out of town. This whole thing doens’t explain itself in just reading a few articles, I’ve been reading along since about February.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:24 am
amanda, thanks for pointing this out!
Regarding the silly is not a ‘real man’s way: I’d rather see the arguments Dadwith2Girls considered futile. Maybe EG and his ‘tap dancers’ (?!) will not agree with you, but in most of these commenting/forum realms, only ~10% really comments. I’ve been doing that for a long time myself.
Just dismissing an argument by calling it names…
July 15th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
EG said “Silly is a frequently used term by women; real men rarely use it in their discourse.” Oooh wow. Why is there nitpicking about it? Don’t like it, move on.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
MMX, thumbs up for presenting us these almost-article-comments. You’re getting somewhere. Let it be encouraging!
July 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
To wtexas,
I answered your questions as best I could and so did mmx.
Regarding inventions, the electric light was conceptual and was not a modification of anything. All other forms of light required the burning of wood, candles, oil or gas.
The radio was also conceptual in nature.
Going from vacuum tubes to silicon chips did not change the concept of the computer.
More patents are given out today that ever, but most of them are for adaptations.
We can compare it to the business world, in which there are more registered businesses, but less and less entrepreneurship. Having a franchise for Midas or Ihop is not entrepreneurship. The ones who issue the franchises are the entrepreneurs and their numbers are decreasing as they are bought up by large conglomerates. Fewer and fewer people own more and more of the business world.
Regarding where have I seen patriarchy work, I have seen it in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Southern Italy and the Balkans.
That’s it for now. Tomorrow is another day.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
One time, I promise its true….I bumped my head.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
My dad once said (guessed?) that the wheel was an adaptation of rolling logs placed under heavy objects to move them along.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Can you even say the wheel was invented? Most likely some ancient guy noticed that a log rolls, or perhaps noticed that a round rock will roll. This observation was a discovery that rounded things move easily over ground, not an invention. In this same way Isaac Newton noticed that things fall down and he discovered gravity, not invented gravity.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Exactly. And if you dare to ask for a “definition” of any word or phrase that EG uses, we’re told that “definitions” are “seen” and therefore “feminine”.
Around and around we go.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“I say we could look at the US patent office to define what invention is.”
I think that was covered – 5% new patents for females.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I say we could look at the US patent office to define what invention is. Any new improved take on existing technology IS a new invention. We had cathode ray tubes for television, plasma and LCD screens did not exist, some lab created (invented) them and now they exist. BTW, the patent office registers hundreds of new patents a year.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Also, when we try to ask for clarification, or we get technical or specific, we are told we “are missing the point”, and our questions go unanswered or washed away in a 1500 word rebuttal.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
To Inidel: thats the problem with EG’s group here, they tap dance around the words they write. For instance, its been said here that the masculine and feminine principle does not necessarily correlate to male and female, which means that creativity and inventiveness can come from a man or a woman, depending I guess on whomever has a preponderance of that principle. Yet, EG’s writings seem to indicate that masculine = male and feminine = female. His group trys to have it both ways. I’ve cited male dominated cultures in the Middle East and according to EG’s teachings these male dominated cultures should be prime examples of the masculine principle at work. Instead I am told some story about these cultures not representing the principle at all.
So I ask this question, can EG or his cohorts give me one specific example of a culture, group, or society, anywhere in the world, existing in the present or the past, which would be the closest thing to the society that EG would like us to move toward?
If this is impossible, then EG is inventing a new form of society, therefore, new inventions ( non material based) are still being created.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Consider the title of this thread: “Decreased Inventiveness — A Symptom”.
The whole argument here hinges on the idea that there are fewer “conceptual” inventions. Has this term even been explained? Has anyone defined what a “conceptual” invention is?
What is the difference between a conceptual invention and an adaptation? Is the space shuttle merely an adaptation of the wheel? After all the “concept” is the same in each case: transportation. Yet reducing the shuttle to a mere adaptation of the wheel certainly discounts a lot of creativeness.
Once we have a definition, we could perhaps do a scientific survey of inventions and *try* to classify each as either conceptual or an adaptation. But so far no such study has been done. Thus, where is the proof that there are fewer conceptual inventions?
EG has some good points, but some of his weak points detract from the rest of the message.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
MMX said: “Most men … have never been exposed to the ’strong, silent type’ of man – the man who expresses his love in deeds, not words.”
EG writes books and articles so how can he be called the silent type? MMX is explaining his philosophy with words. That is not being the silent type either.
July 15th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“to Dadwith2girls,
Silly is a frequently used term by women; real men rarely use it in their discourse.”
Crap!
Now I have to re-read the entire thread just to try to discover my rhetorical “sin.”
And figure out why this anonymous wanker used the silly “shame-and-blame” tactic to waste pixels on a screen.
Man, this is getting to seem a lot like W-O-R-K.
Mike L.?
Your neighborhood is changing….
July 15th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Infidel – “ Lots of men, whether masculine or not, also use expressions like “a real man wouldn’t do that” to insult the person instead of dealing with the argument. Good debates focus on the issues not the personalities, or who is the better man. ”
The better men have a better grasp of the issues, while the lesser men always twist the arguments BOTH away from the issues but also and especially away from the actions and interpretations of the critics.
It’s a lesser man tactic to say, “Use your brains to personally criticize and assault the character of the proposer / creator of an idea, but don’t you DARE use those brains to criticizte ands assault the character of the critics of that idea.” (Again, look above to the crazy-haired woman. What was she running from? The judgments! But she judges the behavior of others, right?
Who is most visibly playing the, “On the one hand, assault someone’s character, but on the other hand, never assault someone’s character!” game?
Mike LaSalle – “Here’s EG’s argument in its simplest form:
“Real men agree with me. If you don’t agree with me, then you are not a real man.””
Wildly summarizing something you don’t understand is like smearing black paint over a picture and calling it an “improvement”. I could care less whether you agree with Elder. But, like a man wearing a bad toupee, you truly and honestly think you’re “fooling us” with your criticisms.
infidel – “Too much testosterone?”
Nope – not enough!! Most men, because they are raised fatherless, or because they are raised under weak men, have never been exposed tot he “strong, silent type” of man – the man who expresses his love in deeds, not words.
All men are first feminine, because they are raised by their mothers in their earliest years. But not all men have been exposed to the strongest possible form of masculinity, so they have no idea what they can (and ought to!!!) strive towards.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:46 am
MMX said: “… masculine men use the phrase “REAL MAN” to remind all men that they have a higher potential which ought to be reached.”
Maybe. It depends on how you say it. Lots of men, whether masculine or not, also use expressions like “a real man wouldn’t do that” to insult the person instead of dealing with the argument. Good debates focus on the issues not the personalities, or who is the better man.
Too much testosterone?
July 15th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Mike LaSalle said,
Here’s EG’s argument in its simplest form:
“Real men agree with me. If you don’t agree with me, then you are not a real man.” …..
Maybe a common Christian analogy is in order. You don’t know what an apple is until you taste it.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Here’s EG’s argument in its simplest form:
“Real men agree with me. If you don’t agree with me, then you are not a real man.”
Here’s the version used by the feminasties and their robotic servants in the divorce industry:
“Real men pay their child support no matter how punitive and unreasonable the judgment. If you don’t pay your child support – even if you’re unemployed or in jail – then you are not a real man.”
The moment you start to play the “real man do X” game, you have already lost.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Here’s a very concrete example to explain the use of REAL MAN.
Again, the masculine Mars symbol. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_symbol)
And again, the feminine Venus symbol. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_symbol)
Elder told me the following in response to my comment #38. Do not make your responses personal; that is feminine and contrary to what you preach.
The bold is mine, but, do you notice how what he told me could easily have said, “MMX, a real man never uses personal attacks unnecessarily.”
I interpretted his remark using the masculine symbol. The circle represents what I did (using personal arguments), while his advice represents the arrow (Things will be better for you if you instead go here.) When you use the masculine symbol to interpret masculine advice, you can say, “You know what? He’s right!” Then you can easily improve your life.
But Mike LaSalle uses the feminine symbol to interpret Elder’s advice. The circle represents what DadWith2Girls did (using a weak argument to destroy someone else) while the downward-pointing cross represents the stubbornness which Mike LaSalle insists DadWith2Girls should employ. (”How dare Elder declare that your argument wasn’t any good! He’s just trying to gain control over you! Conspiracy!)
What happens when you tell a woman that the skimpy shirt she’s wearing unflatteringly exposes her fat stomach and suggest she wear this other, more flattering shirt? Does she take the masculine approach, compare the two shirts in her mind, and say, “You know what? He’s right!” Or does she take the feminine approach of, “How dare you tell me what to wear?”
With regard to inventivenes, people who take the masculine approach are capable of inventing new solutions, while people who tale the feminine approach will always arrogantly resist new solutions. Happens all the time…
July 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Mike LaSalle – “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.”
Sorry Mike, but you brought this upon yourself.
Elder has been firmly but consistently telling me to make sure that my arguments and comments stray away from the personal (like my comment #38 towards amfortas). But when you stick your neck out and personally accuse Elder of being misandrist, the ONLY reply is to become personal.
Real man is masculine codespeak for the question, “Did you conduct yourself in the best way possible? To a masculine man, this question is very welcoming, because he usually asks it of himself anyway. But to a less masculine man, this question is offensive, a sort of, “how dare YOU question MY actions?”
(I was watching this show Mind Your Manners on The Learning Channel. In it, were three people who were very coarse and ill-mannered, who were being put through a crash course on etiquette. There was a truck-driver from Brooklyn, a crazy-haired, female wild child from I-Forgot-Where, and a future Harvard Woman’s Studies major wearing a manly t-shirt which read, “This is what afeminist looks like.”
While all three people revealed themselves as having this same trait, the crazy-haired chick exemplified it best in an argument with the male etiquette teacher.
He showed her an interview clip of her friends, explaining why they want her to be more well-mannered. “We don’t feel we can take her to adult places, because her behavior always makes us look bad…”
She replied with, “I want to take my clothes off, spit in your face, and just run away from all this!”
He asked, “But what are you running from?”
She replied, “The judgments!”
He calmly observed, “But you certainly judge other peoples’ behavior, don’t you?”)
Very much like the crazy-haired chick who “runs away from the judgments”, Mike LaSalle accuses Elder of being “misandrist”, simply because Elder has the sense to point out whenever men fail to live up to their highest possible potential.
And very much like the crazy-haired chick, Mike LaSalle cannot accept that, since no one supported Mike LaSalle in his accusations, then those accusations must be wrong. Instead, Mike LaSalle is playing a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” approach, wherein if everyone called Elder a misandrist, then Mike LaSalle is correct, whereas if no one calls Elder a misandrist, then Mike LaSalle is abrave, heoric figure who understands Elder like nobody else, so why even ask people what they think of Elder anyway?
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose arguments always shake my head and make me think of the universal reaction to a terrible toupee, “My God, does he truly think he’s fooling anybody, let alone everybody?
Mike – Since no one supported your “misandrist” finger-pointing, kindly apologize. You simply don’t understand how masculine men use the phrase “REAL MAN” to remind all men that they have a higher potential which ought to be reached.
July 15th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Also, if you want to truly see a masculine man’s core, decide whether his arguments can be reduced to, “Let’s go to a different, better place, simply because it is better. Let’s risk our current materialistic lifestyle in favor of a new way of thinking that is more healthy and balanced.”
That’s the core of masculine leadership.
July 15th, 2007 at 8:47 am
sc567 – My favorite masculine/feminine drawing takes the male sign of Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_symbol) and the female sign of Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_symbol) and super-imposes them such that their common rings overlap.
How does one interpret this drawing?
Well, the masculine force is always starting at the central world, common to both genders, and saying, “Let’s go over here. I’ll lead. Why? Because the world is better over there.”
While the feminine force, in reaction to this, is always saying, “No. Let’s stay here, in the place where I am comfortable, because I would rather keep known comfort than unknown better comfort, even though that unknown comfort may be better than what I have now!
Do you really want to spot a feminized man? If his arguments and tactics can be reduced to, “We need the status quo, because we know it best!” then he’s too feminized to follow the masculine, inventive principle.
July 15th, 2007 at 8:36 am
wtexas – I hadn’t thought to look to spirituality, not as a “fettering agent”, but as a “difference of focus” to explain the lack of material invention. But Elder’s perspective works.
When masculine authority is largely unchecked within a spiritually-focused society, material luxury is considered dangerous due to its potential to pull people away from all matters spiritual, and towards their own selfish needs for material comfort. (This explains why I wasn’t allowed to play too much Nintendo when I was growing up, for fear that it would pull me away from my studies.)
When you define life as spirit, material comfort is interpretted as running away from life. Alcohol = running away from life, sp ot’s forbidden. Casual, non-commital sex = running away from life, so it’s forbidden.
Those are pretty easy to understand, so very few people disagree with them. But let’s move to the more difficult to understand, less comfortable.
(1) Refusing to allow the public to discuss your wrong-doings = running away from life. If you’re in a position of power, and can squash the dissent, that’s running away from life. But if you’re not in such a position, you can always declare that the dissenter doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is also running away from life.
(2) Refusing to acknowledge the existence of “the best possible approach” = running away from life. When you refuse to acknowledge the best approach, you cut off people who ask you whether your actions were the best possible ones you could take. And when you do this, you’re really giving yourself permission to make mediocre, or even terrible decisions, the vast majority of the time – just without reaping the consequences thereof.
(3) Existing to be noticed and praised = running away from life. We commonly call this attention whoring, but this mindset runs away from life. This is because it’s about 999 times easier to be noticed by focusing on petty truths and parroting them over and over again (and a myriad other petty ways of drawing attention to oneself) than it is to tackle and solve an exceptionally large, far-reaching problem.
Running away from life is feminine, because the basic feminine reproductive strategy is to attach yourself to the man who can do the most work, thereby leeching off of his strength to provide for your own security and comfort. And no man who employs the feminine reproductive strategy of running away from life will ever invent, because he focuses his energy on non-inventive ends.
When a man’s desire for material comfort pulls a way a man’s need to create and prove himself according to the best possible standard, he has traded away his inventiveness for trinkets.