Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum - The Things That Can or Can't be Avoided

Pages: 1 2 3

Inspiration for this thread provided by the "What do men Want" thread. I suppose I could have avoided it.

The two reliables, death and taxes, the former can't be avoided and the latter can but be cafeful its done legally.Taxes may be avoidable in life but you're still not immune from them when dead. Anyway the previous is just a.sampling. What else can or can't be avoided?

Evolution seems to be unavoidable. Despite the fact we can genetically modify, there are those like myself who consider that in itself an evolutionary step. Don't think it means we as a species just stop evolving.

I like to avoid situations where I'm either in peril or about to break the law. A form of avoiding trouble I suppose. It's something I can consciously avoid. Purposely avoiding something means some thought goes into the decision so....

If I can knowingly avoid then are there things I instinctively avoid? This one has me stumped. How do I avoid and not think about it first? Perhaps I had to learn to avoid. As an infant I'm positive my parents told me a of a few things to stay away from, like fire. Maybe panic can cause instinctive avoidance. Panic won't help you avoid a dangerous situation like being forced to swim across shark infested waters to save your life. Yet at the same time you've instinctively made an effort to avoid dying by some other means. It's about the only thing I can think of that we may try to avoid instinctively.....dying.

Not picking up the phone, not going outside, any irrational behavior linked to a phobia is a form of avoidance in my mind. Is it or can it develope to be instinctive? Not sure on that. .

Most simply formulated, it is a paradox – the paradox of behavior which is at one and the same time self-perpetuating and self-defeating! …Common sense holds that a normal, sensible man, or even a beast to the limits of his intelligence, will weigh and balance the consequences of his acts: if the net effect is favorable, the action producing it will be perpetuated; and if the net effect is unfavorable, the action producing it will be inhibited, abandoned. In neurosis, however, one sees actions which have predominantly unfavorable consequences; yet they persist over a period of months, years, or a lifetime.—O.H. Mowrer

I watched this movie recently. Most people would probably consider it boring but the donkey reminded me of "The Myth of Sisyphus."

Au Hasard Balthazar; meaning "Balthazar, at Random"

Quote:The film follows Marie (Wiazemsky), a shy farm girl, and her beloved donkey Balthazar over many years. As Marie grows up, the pair becomes separated, but the film traces both their fates as they live parallel lives, continually taking abuse of all forms from the people they encounter. The donkey has several owners, most of whom exploit him, often with more cruelty than kindness. Balthazar and Marie often suffer at the hands of the same people.

Roger Ebert argued, "The genius of Bresson's approach is that he never gives us a single moment that could be described as one of Balthazar's 'reaction shots.' Other movie animals may roll their eyes or stomp their hooves, but Balthazar simply walks or waits, regarding everything with the clarity of a donkey who knows it is a beast of burden, and that its life consists of either bearing or not bearing.

Anne Wiazemsky's biography reveals the nature of her relationship with director Robert Bresson

"Anne Wiazemsky was 18 when Robert Bresson entered her life."

She was actually one month shy of being 18. He was 64.

But then came the disagreeable moment when he would try to kiss me ...

She was cast as Marie in his 1966 movie, Au Hasard Balthazar, and the director promptly became obsessed with his teenage leading lady. "Bresson always had a very close relationship with his actresses during filming. But in my case, he pushed the experience to the extreme," she says. "For a month and a half, we lived under the same roof with adjoining bedrooms and he never let me out of his sight."

Wiazemsky's experiences with Bresson - a man known for his austere, spiritual cinematic profile - are revealed in her new memoir, Jeune Fille, which has rather shaken perceptions of the great director. But it's not a tale of an innocent corrupted, even if Bresson was, after a fashion, responsible for Wiazemsky's first sexual experiences. "From the start I felt at home on set. I found a new family and in Bresson I thought I'd finally found someone who understood me," she writes in the book. She describes the evolution of a relationship so close that by the end of the shoot, she knew instinctively what her director needed.

Wiazemsky had a stern, conservative upbringing, and as Marie - a schoolteacher's daughter - she was called on to display a mixture of innocence, vulnerability and sensuality. Bresson became fascinated by her, off set as well as on. When they were alone, she writes in Jeune Fille, "at first, he would content himself by holding my arm, or stroking my cheek. But then came the disagreeable moment when he would try to kiss me ... I would push him away and he wouldn't insist, but he looked so unhappy that I always felt guilty."

That relationship of obsession was, she says now, repeated with other directors later in her career. "It's almost banal to speak of the fascination that a director can have for his lead actress. The emotion that existed between Bresson and I, I experienced again with Pasolini when we made Theorem. It can give rise to good performances. But Pasolini was homosexual. It doesn't always mean you're going to sleep together." Wiazemsky was evidently a fascinating figure to directors: on the set of Balthazar, she met Jean-Luc Godard, whom she married a year later.

Bresson's films often treat early expressions of sexuality as critical moments: giving in to carnality prevents people achieving sanctity. The theme of emergent sexual knowledge was repeated when the camera was not rolling: Wiazemsky, troubled by her relationship with Bresson, ended up sleeping with one of the film's crew, which in turn allowed her to deal more forcefully with Bresson's advances.

"Girls of a certain age, 17, 18, give off signals that men interpret," she says. "Losing my virginity not only gave me the courage to say no to Bresson but to other men as well."

(Sep 25, 2018 01:57 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]At least I now know what men like myself want...Peace on Earth

And yet, half of the population is considered prey.

(Sep 23, 2018 03:44 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]"The hunter and the hunted."
Who said that? Not me. O no no no, not me.

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were only madmen that were dangerous?

Mosquitoes kill more people than any other creature on earth but the most dangerous 'animal' by far is the human male.

Neurosis: an excessive and irrational anxiety or obsession.

Which is more irrational, sizing every man up for danger or every man's obsession?

Death is really the only unavoidable thing in life. After all, you can't be taxed if you don't earn any money...like living off the land.

As we all suspected, SS can't let it go and will continue to cross-contaminate topics.
Seriously, girl, think about therapy.

(Sep 26, 2018 03:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]And yet, half of the population is considered prey.

Only to the paranoid or the relatively small percentage of actual predators (see declining crime rates).

Quote:Wouldn’t it be nice if it were only madmen that were dangerous?

Mosquitoes kill more people than any other creature on earth but the most dangerous 'animal' by far is the human male.

Neurosis: an excessive and irrational anxiety or obsession.

Which is more irrational, sizing every man up for danger or every man's obsession?

Well, since you haven't actually described the supposed obsession, it would have to be the paranoia. The only obsession most men have is the natural drive to reproduce.

Quote:In neurosis, one sees actions which have predominantly unfavorable consequences; yet they persist over a period of months, years, or a lifetime.

Reproduction doesn't, itself, have unfavorable consequences.

(Sep 26, 2018 05:42 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]As we all suspected, SS can't let it go and will continue to cross-contaminate topics.

Cross-contaminate? Sex is an instinct. How, why, when, and with whom is socially conditioned. The problem is the inequality in operant conditioning.

Syne Wrote:
(Sep 26, 2018 03:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]And yet, half of the population is considered prey.
Only to the paranoid or the relatively small percentage of actual predators (see declining crime rates).

Err, that was in response to C2's "the hunter and the hunted" remark.

Syne Wrote:Well, since you haven't actually described the supposed obsession, it would have to be the paranoia. The only obsession most men have is the natural drive to reproduce.

Err, it was described in the relationship between the actress and director. There is no natural drive to reproduce, dumbass. There’s only the sex drive. That’s all that was needed, and yes, there are lots of consequences.

There’s physical consequences, financial consequences, social consequences, and interpersonal consequences.

And this...

Syne Wrote:Reproduction doesn't, itself, have unfavorable consequences.

is not even wrong.

"The hunter and the hunted." - OK maybe that was me.
Following my own train of thought I could not avoid the conclusion all females should carry a gun. If a female trusts me with my (assumed for purpose of discussion) superior strength then I will in turn trust her with a gun.

(Sep 26, 2018 08:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]
(Sep 26, 2018 05:42 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]As we all suspected, SS can't let it go and will continue to cross-contaminate topics.
Cross-contaminate?

(Aug 21, 2018 03:20 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: [ -> ]It's become apparent you can neither remember the point of contention after a while, nor even what thread you're supposed to be arguing about.

Quote:Sex is an instinct. How, why, when, and with whom is socially conditioned. The problem is the inequality in operant conditioning.

No, the vast majority of sexual behaviors are instinctual, because reproduction is crucial to evolution.
The only "social conditioning" is the narrative people tell themselves and each other (like the lies about what women are attracted to) and traumatic abuse that warps the sexual drives. Both sexes have different pressures simply because they have different reproduction strategies. There is no societal conditioning going on (unless you're specifically talking about ones with Sharia law and the like). Rolleyes

Quote:
Syne Wrote:
(Sep 26, 2018 03:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]And yet, half of the population is considered prey.
Only to the paranoid or the relatively small percentage of actual predators (see declining crime rates).

Err, that was in response to C2's "the hunter and the hunted" remark.

And? O_o
Are you not standing by your statement or are you just equivocating something mundane, like men being the ones who initiate and approach?

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Well, since you haven't actually described the supposed obsession, it would have to be the paranoia. The only obsession most men have is the natural drive to reproduce.

Err, it was described in the relationship between the actress and director. There is no natural drive to reproduce, dumbass. There’s only the sex drive. That’s all that was needed, and yes, there are lots of consequences.

There’s physical consequences, financial consequences, social consequences, and interpersonal consequences.

Sex behaviors have only been selected for specifically because they encourage reproduction. That's how evolution works, deary.
But no, "every man" is not "obsessed" with using positions of power to pressure women into sex. That's a misandrist generality.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Reproduction doesn't, itself, have unfavorable consequences.

is not even wrong.

Sure, if you think children are inherently an unfavorable consequence. Dodgy

Life cannot be avoided.

Whether you believe in an immortal soul, where you can never truly escape your own spark of life, or you believe it all ends with this one, where you will never actually be able to experience any relief from it. Does it count as avoiding if you never experience it?

Quote:Life cannot be avoided.

oo...I like.that. By default, whatever force(s) created the universe is also responsible for creating life. The two seem to go hand in hand. As old Blue Eyes would say, you can't have one without the other. Life doesnt just go around looking for a universe to settle down in, does it? I think you can add life to the list of products spewed forth from the BB, thus making it an unavoidable occurrence., at least.in the universe.

Syne Wrote:Sure, if you think children are inherently an unfavorable consequence.

The cost of reproduction is widely known and it’s not just a consequence of maternal death, deary.

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him...The cure for that is enforced monogamy."—Jordan Peterson

Uh...no, but this might help.

Syne Wrote:And you're alive because good men protected you from bad men.

Enforced monogamy may reduce male-male competition but there’s a great deal of evidence showing that female choice is vital. Restricting our choice not only increases our dependence on men but reduces the overall fitness in the population. Sexual selection is an additional filter that insures fitness by reducing the genetic load in the population and protects our species against extinction.

Zinman Wrote:Evolution seems to be unavoidable. Despite the fact we can genetically modify, there are those like myself who consider that in itself an evolutionary step. Don't think it means we as a species just stop evolving.

And if you want to continue to evolve at a rapid rate, I'd suggest that you let us do what we do best. Let us decide with whom, where, and when the conditions are right.

Power envy? Maybe. Penis envy? Oh, hell no, but I suspect that all of this unwanted behavior may stem from womb envy. I mean...that is where you came from and you're always trying to wiggle your way back in. Big Grin

[Stan:] I want to have babies.
[Reg:] You want to have babies?!
[Stan:] It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
[Reg:] But… you can’t have babies.
[Loretta:] Don’t you oppress me.
[Reg:] I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! — Where’s the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
[Stan:] [crying]
[Judith:] Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
[Francis:] Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
[Reg:] What’s the point?
[Francis:] What?
[Reg:] What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
[Francis:] It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
[Reg:] Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Quote:And if you want to continue to evolve at a rapid rate, I'd suggest that you let us do what we do best. Let us decide with whom, where, and when the conditions are right.

Maybe my Internet persona makes me sound like a male chauvinist pig but I'm really not.. I can't turn back the evolutionary clock that puts me in the position where I appreciate good looks but to be perfectly honest I admire what's between the ears just as much. I feel fortunate to feel this way and since I only had girls for children I hope this gene gets passed on in my grandkids....of course all I have is a granddaughter so I hope that characteristic ends up in a male strand of DNA someday. I'm all for women wanting what males take for granted. I remember telling my girls that the world favored males and that they shouldn't expect to find it easy in the real world. They must of listened, they both have upper management jobs in their respective companis. Couldn't be prouder. LIke you, they knew it was unavoidable and I sincerely hope evolution moves quickly on this one....lol

Pages: 1 2 3