jfortun

I will admit to finding some abstract art visually and decoratively appealing. If a piece's concept is well though out and well translated onto canvas I may even be able to appreciate it intellectually. But I can't say that I have ever felt an emotional connection to even the best of such art and at best it can be nothing more than a curiosity or puzzle to be work. At worst abstract art is nothing more than a waste of time and materials. Given this view I tend to view abstract art, not as art at all, but as decoration. As an example, I can appreciate Piet Mondrian's work on some level, while someone like Jackson Pollock represents anti-art. I'm not an art expert so I'm not sure I could accurately define when art becomes "abstract" but I think that it describes art in which no attempt to recreate the real is made.

For my part, finding a good cause in the art world to support is tough enough without excluding those that had (or have) a very minor association with undesirables. I think we can recognize and act on the good in something; as long as we never drop the context we needn't compromise our principles. on to the OP: I had the misfortune of watching a documentary some years ago featuring Hockney and the man is a hack. Even if what he states is true, that the Old Masters utilized a camera obscura to assist in their art, they are still much greater artists than Hockney and his modern comrades. That said, I don't believe Hockney knows what he is talking about and it does seem like hatred of the good.

I can't understand arguments that haven't been presented and there aren't any other arguments save that women are physically vulnerable. If there is more I am missing then I'd like to hear them; if there isn't any more but you feel it should be enough then say so. Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding.

Well, that may have been said but what then are the other factors? They are not described in this thread and not in the essays Betsy was kind enough to send along. I cannot misrepresent what has not been said.

I want to add that if I am misreading this I will happily stand corrected.

yes you do. I don't think the Betsy's point is only about an erection- but is about a man physically overcoming a woman.

From Betsy's essay "Sexual Surrender" Above it is stated explicitly and elswhere it is implied: that the woman does not choose and that she must trust that a man will choose rationally, or looked at negatively, trust that a man does not force himself upon her- and it is this vulnerability that makes up an essential component of a woman's psychology and her role in a romantic relationship.

According the Department of Justice, the percentage of women who have of been victims of rape/attempted rape during their lifetime is 17.6% For men it's 3%, and it is believed that male rape is reported only 1% of the time. An uncomfortably large number, but hardly "normal". I am not trying to say that rape isn't a problem or that it is rare- I am saying it is abnormal. I haven't found statistics on the percentage of men who are rapists, but that number is likely to be very very very low; so from that perspective too, it is abnormal for a man to commit rape. From a psychological perspective is also certainly abnormal behavior.

This is precisely why I take issue with a woman's psychology being defined by the possiblity of an abnormal- namely, rape.

I think there are 2 issues: 1) Is global warming occuring? 2) If so, are humans to blame? Since there is no real concensus on the first question how can it be remotely possible to answer the second?

It can work that way. It can also work other ways, and both parties can still be rational and happy participants. I am not looking to eradicate differences between the sexes. I am interested in understanding what is biological vs. what is cultural and what may just be up to personal preference. I think psychology is too much in its infancy to tell us anything definative about the root causes of male/female differences. Absolutely! I just happen to think those differences encompass a broader range of behaviors, desires and goals.

groan...

Despite the fact the Star Wars has at its heart mystic anti-technology themes, I am still very excited that the original trilogy is being released on DVD tomorrow. Who's with me?

I'm a big Simmons fan. Hyperion was quite good. I am anxiously awaiting the follow up to his most recent book, Illium. A sci-fi story about a recreation of the Trojan War. Lots of cool things to say about it, but I don't want to spoil anything for others.

maybe it's supposed to be a piece of performance art about the hidden self-loathing we all share. I'm really glad she was teaching students.

I think there is a difference between familiarity that is forced such as that between a brother and sister and a familiarity that is earned by the effort and exchange of values required to maintain a lifelong friendship. The former seems to reject the outside world in favor of the no-risk safety of the family cocoon, while the latter is about embracing and exploring beyond the family. In the case of brother-sister romantic relationships I think part of the attraction for the participants is in never having to grow up.

We are not "reading into" anything more than you are saying. Zen Buddhism has the characteristics I described. You compared Objectivism and Buddhism as possibly similar, I pointed out just a couple of ways in which they are not. Perhaps you mistake our "reading into" your words as us actually knowing what those words mean. Thus far you have: 1) Compared Objectivism with a version of Christianity you can't describe but guess may have existed, in some form, some unknown time ago and that may contain some ideas that, if context is ignored, may be superficially similar to Objectivism. 2) Compared the aforementioned bizarro Christianity and Objectivism with Zen Buddhism, in the process of which you have ignored the religion's own tenets and definitions of its primary practices. 3) Suggested that the “intuition” the Einstein speaks of and the Zen Buddhism are one in the same while admitting that you don’t actually know that much about Einstein and have demonstrated that you don’t know much about Buddhism either. 4) Suggested that meditation, which is defined at best as a means of introspection and at worst as a means of blanking out all thought, is actually a viable way to discover truths about the outside world and moreover that this is compatible with Objectivism. If you don’t mean any of the above the above then you need to start using different words, stop dropping context and do a bit more reading about your subject before offering any more theories. Or perhaps you arrived at these suppositions through intuition and meditation?

It seems almost too ridiculous to respond to but I am in a playful mood... Then how can you compare it to something that can be definatively described, i.e. Objectivism? I'm pretty sure that Buddhist "enlightenment" and objective knowledge of the universe are not the same thing. The four noble truths describe that desire - the desire of earthy goals - is the cause of suffering. The eightfold path, is nothing but an aribitrary set of doctrines (much like the 10 Commandments) completely untied to the needs and nature of man on earth. The 8th path is that of meditation and meditation is not a state of deep introspection; it is the attempt to obliterate all thought. Zen Buddhism is even less like Objectivism than good old-fashioned Christianity!

I understand what you are saying, but a psychology based on the prospect of rape, that is, an aberration of from reason, strikes me as a reversal of how it should be. Recognizing and taking precaution against the potential of rape is rational, basing an entire romantic and sexual psychology on it smacks of a belief in a maelevolent universe. And it still doesn't answer what of the female psychology within an established relationship? Or is the female response to men set in stone?

Within the context of a relationship it does happen that a man is not interested in sex and the woman chooses to initiate. In my relationship, my wife may initiate after which I become aroused and maybe (ok, always) choose to follow through. But it is also the case that I may attempt to initiate and she chooses not to be interested. Within the context of a relationship the woman DOES have a choice. My being or not being interested has no effect without her being or not being interested. We both choose and are both chosen. If the choice matters to a woman's psychology in an irrational relationship, why does it not matter in an rational one? Outside the context of a relationship, I have a hard time defining a woman's metaphysical status according to the possible actions of a irrational man, i.e. rape. I can't introspect on this issue so if other women car to weigh in on this issue I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

What physiological fact leads to the conclusion the male is or must always be the initiator and sustainer? The threat of a man's potential use of force? If so, I don't think the threat of rape is a valid basis for determining proper sexual roles and masculine/feminine psychology. Edited to add: In the context of an existing relationship how can the threat of rape continue to be an influence on her psychology? Edited again to add: Betsy- I have just received your articles and I may flood with questions and possibly some objections.

I didn't say it wasn't a big step!

Tolkien is all about the language! I think translating that book and keeping Tolkien's intentions in tact would be impossible. You must re-read it in English. You still may not like it as Tolkien holds on to some faulty premises but it is still worth reading in its original tongue.

Or you could conclude that this woman derives self-esteem from that others think about her appearance. You can't actually know either way without talking to this woman with the earrings.

your use of the phrase indicates that you are not just talking about the IS but the SHOULD. You haven't really offered any reason to support why it should be that way- just that it generally is that way (i.e. tradition). I accept that it generally is, but no one has offered a compelling argument that this isn't a cultural phenomena rather than a biological one. I believe such a distinction is important to this argument. If you have made an argument beyond that of men being physically stronger than women, then I missed it. So I was not deliberately misrepresenting anything, just recounting what appeared to be your postion. Why immediately make accusations of dishonesty?