Can evolutionary biology explain the human impulse to create?

#31
(Dec 20, 2017 12:34 AM)Syne Wrote: So what were you really trying to say here:
(Dec 19, 2017 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe you should read the book, too, because you always tend to presume a separation of subject from object.

To my knowledge, aside from grammar, the subject/object dichotomy is pretty specific to the epistemological question of how independent "things" are from our awareness of them. That's central to whether you believe objective fact exists. Sounds like you're saying that was just some throwaway snark from you.

I was originally only talking about how men don't necessarily require any intentionality in their appreciation for things, e.g. appreciating things "in and of themselves." So it would seem that you've demonstrated my point. From a woman's perspective, intentionality is what it's "all about."


How on earth did you read into that anything even approaching "blam[ing] the rock"?! O_o
Is that what happens when you don't "presume a separation of subject from object"?  Rolleyes

Will my explanation be met will an immediate rebuttal or will you actually take the time to try to understand?
Reply
#32
(Dec 20, 2017 04:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Will my explanation be met will an immediate rebuttal or will you actually take the time to try to understand?

Depends. Can you explain yourself clearly without snide comments?

So far, it looks like you agree with me, so I'm not sure what needs explaining.
Reply
#33
(Dec 20, 2017 04:52 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 20, 2017 04:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Will my explanation be met will an immediate rebuttal or will you actually take the time to try to understand?

Depends. Can you explain yourself clearly without snide comments?

So far, it looks like you agree with me, so I'm not sure what needs explaining.

What is it exactly, that we agree on? That men like things "in and of themselves," and women like things for their usefulness, is that it?
Reply
#34
You tell me. I said men differ in that they appreciate things for their own sake, and you said women appreciate the intentionality. I don't see how those two are in conflict.
Reply
#35
(Dec 20, 2017 12:34 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 20, 2017 12:09 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 19, 2017 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote: So an atheist can believe all facts are dependent on subjective belief?
Curious why you would so scorn the beliefs of others then.

We were talking about 'things', Syne.  You know, inanimate objects.

An inanimate object can induce emotions but it doesn’t have intentionality.

A stone is an inanimate object and its existence doesn't depend on my subjective belief.  I love rocks but they don’t love me.  They’re useful, though.  They can be used as a gift or a weapon.

Male penguins present them to females because they use them to build nests.  

It’s all about intentionality, Syne.

A falling or thrown rock could harm a person but you’d hard pressed to find someone who’d blame the rock.

So the Descartes/Russell comment was completely lost on you. So what were you really trying to say here:
(Dec 19, 2017 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe you should read the book, too, because you always tend to presume a separation of subject from object.

To my knowledge, aside from grammar, the subject/object dichotomy is pretty specific to the epistemological question of how independent "things" are from our awareness of them. That's central to whether you believe objective fact exists. Sounds like you're saying that was just some throwaway snark from you.

I was originally only talking about how men don't necessarily require any intentionality in their appreciation for things, e.g. appreciating things "in and of themselves." So it would seem that you've demonstrated my point. From a woman's perspective, intentionality is what it's "all about."


How on earth did you read into that anything even approaching "blam[ing] the rock"?! O_o
Is that what happens when you don't "presume a separation of subject from object"?  Rolleyes

Your comment was not lost on me.  My comment was lost on you, though.  It was from the book that you'll never read.

Syne Wrote:Or do you just favor Descartes' somewhat solipsistic view, that objects don't have "real' existence without a subject, over Russell's view, that equates objects with facts, independent from subjective beliefs?

Isn't that an odd juxtaposition for an atheist?

Women are perfectly capable of appreciating something for its own sake.  Aesthetics are sensori-emotional values.  

I think of communication as a dance, perhaps, or a musical call and response.  I would share more with you but it's painful and awkward.  You're a bad dancer, Syne.  You need to practice.
Reply
#36
(Dec 20, 2017 08:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Your comment was not lost on me.  My comment was lost on you, though.  It was from the book that you'll never read.

You certainly gave no indication* that you understood it (not even quoting that reference, talking about non sequitur stonework, and apparently proselytizing a favorite book).

Quote:Women are perfectly capable of appreciating something for its own sake.  Aesthetics are sensori-emotional values.  

Did I say that women weren't capable of it? No. I said men and women have different preferences and tendencies.
These are differences that have been shown to generally hold true, even in infants, regardless of your personal anecdotes.

Quote:I think of communication as a dance, perhaps, or a musical call and response.  I would share more with you but it's painful and awkward.  You're a bad dancer, Syne.  You need to practice.

There's your problem right there. *Antiphony is lacking the necessary acknowledgement/feedback that a proper communication cycle requires. Like your above example of failing to acknowledge that you even read the Descartes/Russell comment, it leads to miscommunication due to the lack of feedback. Feedback is necessary in both communication and dancing to let your counterpart know that you are either leading or following. It is awkward when failing to do so means the other person has to make assumptions (like trying to guess what some book has to do with anything) and you step on their toes.

You're the bad dancer, sweetie. But I always assume it's on purpose, so you can weasel your way out of jams with equivocations, etc..
Reply
#37
Dance?
1-2-3-cut-1-2-3-trip-1-2-3-hack

One of my old drinking buddies was a priest (yes he was) - one of his (many) objections to the ordination of women was their tendency to dance. For a bloke wearing a dress - absolutely the last thing you want to do is join a bunch of dancing women.
Reply
#38
Look at C C’s answer.  It’s perfect.  I don’t know if she’s older than me.  I’d like to think so because she’s wiser than me.  She always knows what I’m after...her thought process. She’s an elegant dancer.  

(Dec 8, 2017 11:29 PM)C C Wrote: Curiosity wise, perhaps I'm less enthused about "new" objects / events and invented skills of the sensed level of the world. Since whatever "unknown" novelties remain will usually still fall under existing and expected classes of things. At the very bottom (or top?) of the hierarchy there are universal attributes like any _X_ having a spatial shape / configuration that's either static or changing, and it being just another cog in an environment of mechanistic relationships / interactions.

Same thing with C2.  Although, he may not think so, he’s a good dancer.

Syne Wrote:You're the bad dancer, sweetie. But I always assume it's on purpose, so you can weasel your way out of jams with equivocations, etc.

That’s your problem…you always assume. You’re the one who’s always trying to simplify complex ideas with your little...um, um...dichotomies.  Big Grin

Syne Wrote:I said men and women have different preferences and tendencies.

Pff!

(Dec 19, 2017 04:28 PM)Syne Wrote: No idea, as I've never built a model. But I'm an artist, so perhaps that is like paint-by-number or coloring books for the less creative.

That’s exactly how I feel.  Maybe you’re more fluid than you think.  Wink

It could be like working on a jigsaw puzzle, though.

Excerpt:
Logic presumes a separation of subject from object;
Article:
therefore logic is not final wisdom. The illusion of separation of subject from object is best removed by the elimination of physical activity, mental activity and emotional activity.

What is essential to understand at this point is that until now there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject and object, form and substance. Those divisions are just dialectical inventions that came later. The modern mind sometimes tends to balk at the thought of these dichotomies being inventions and says, ``Well, the divisions were there for the Greeks to discover,'' and you have to say, ``Where were they? Point to them!'' And the modern mind gets a little confused and wonders what this is all about anyway, and still believes the divisions were there. But they weren't, as Phædrus said. They are just ghosts, immortal gods of the modern mythos which appear to us to be real because we are in that mythos. But in reality they are just as much an artistic creation as the anthropomorphic Gods they replaced.

From Peter E. Siegle’s article:

"There is a constant push toward being a specialist, a situation which forces us into a search for outlets other than our work for the satisfaction of needs and desires related to being so many things besides an "economic man. Specialization is a condition which narrows, pinches, and confines a man, limiting him severely in a very important percentage of his daily waking hours. It binds him to a bench, a typewriter, a set of books with lines and figures, a drawing board, or n'impotre quoi. Gone are the days when a man was a master mechanic, the machinist who could fix anything."

"Areté implies a respect for the wholeness or oneness of life, and a consequent dislike of specialization. It implies a contempt for efficiency...or rather a much higher idea of efficiency, an efficiency which exists not in one department of life but in life itself."

C2 may or may not have known that Robert Pirsig used "arete" as a synonym for Quality in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Either way, it was a good...cut—trip—hack.
Reply
#39
(Dec 21, 2017 03:43 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Look at C C’s answer.  It’s perfect.  I don’t know if she’s older than me.  I’d like to think so because she’s wiser than me.  She always knows what I’m after...her thought process. She’s an elegant dancer.  

What, a woman is better at understanding another woman? Does everyone know about this?  Rolleyes

Quote:Same thing with C2.  Although, he may not think so, he’s a good dancer.

Yes, I'm positive you would think people who generally agree with you are less "painful and awkward." That is a liability to maintaining a high degree of cognitive dissonance. Being challenged is very discomforting to inconsistent people. Challenging consistent people is like strengthening the immune system...it feels healthy.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:You're the bad dancer, sweetie. But I always assume it's on purpose, so you can weasel your way out of jams with equivocations, etc.

That’s your problem…you always assume. You’re the one who’s always trying to simplify complex ideas with your little...um, um...dichotomies.  Big Grin

So you scoff at the feedback step in a proper communication cycle? If you don't provide feedback, you cannot rationally expect anyone to improve upon their understanding of what you say. But then, you probably only understand communication as a intuitive ability.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:I said men and women have different preferences and tendencies.

Pff!

Yeah, that's the response to facts I've come to expect from you.

Quote:
(Dec 19, 2017 04:28 PM)Syne Wrote: No idea, as I've never built a model. But I'm an artist, so perhaps that is like paint-by-number or coloring books for the less creative.

That’s exactly how I feel.  Maybe you’re more fluid than you think.  Wink

It could be like working on a jigsaw puzzle, though.

LOL! I've always tested fairly equally on left/right-brainedness. I can only assume it is ideological pigeon-holing that keeps people from realizing that.
High IQ and creativity and being a musician are all linked to well-connected brain hemispheres. It's only in average brains that hemisphere dominance may correlate to gender, while brain structure size is a much more solid correlation.

Quote:
Excerpt:
Logic presumes a separation of subject from object;
Article:
therefore logic is not final wisdom. The illusion of separation of subject from object is best removed by the elimination of physical activity, mental activity and emotional activity.

What is essential to understand at this point is that until now there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject and object, form and substance. Those divisions are just dialectical inventions that came later. The modern mind sometimes tends to balk at the thought of these dichotomies being inventions and says, ``Well, the divisions were there for the Greeks to discover,'' and you have to say, ``Where were they? Point to them!'' And the modern mind gets a little confused and wonders what this is all about anyway, and still believes the divisions were there. But they weren't, as Phædrus said. They are just ghosts, immortal gods of the modern mythos which appear to us to be real because we are in that mythos. But in reality they are just as much an artistic creation as the anthropomorphic Gods they replaced.

If that's the sort of emotionally coddling twaddle he has to offer... Rolleyes

Again, do you believe in objective facts? Come on, certainly you have the nerve to answer that simple, direct question.

Quote:From Peter E. Siegle’s article:

Any reason you seem to have quit citing the actual sources for your quotes? O_o
Just lazy, huh?
Reply
#40
Women tend to be more dominate in Artistic and Conventional personality types, and men in Realistic and Investigative personalities.
I seem to be equally dominate in Realistic, Investigative, and Artistic. https://www.careerkey.org/choose-a-caree...jtY0Pmzta4
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)