Wednesday, September 26, 2007

All in the Family

To think, to really think, that Hillary has the only set of C-in-C brass balls among the Democrats may, in fact, turn out to be true. Yet one must always remember that for a Democrat, at this stage of their shady game, to claim to have balls of any metallic substance is an easy gambit. Teflon testicles are today's standard issue for the Crats. I'll admit that measured against someone like John Edwards the impression that Hillary possesses a penis may well have some truth to it... --American Digest

Yesterday I mentioned the idea that in the deep unconscious, where symmetrical logic dominates, both a proposition and its converse can be equally true. This is in contrast to the asymmetrical logic of the conscious mind, in which the converse of a true proposition is a false one. I cited the example of the biblical "proposition" that Jesus died to atone for man's sins against God. However, in the symmetrical unconscious, it might be equally true that Jesus died for God's transgressions against man, thus, without his consciously realizing it, help human beings process their unconscious anger or disappointment toward God.

One could argue that this isn't true, but that's not the point. This is simply how the unconscious mind perceives things, and we wouldn't be human if it didn't. Rather, we'd be more like machines or liberals, just slaves to linear logic, emotion, or the senses. Creativity is not usually a result of logic, but of the unconscious mind's spontaneous ability to form all kinds of unpredictable connections, just as in a dream. It is a merger of Male and Female in their most abstract essences. Especially in Jungian psychology, the unconscious has always been conceptualized as feminine, the conscious as masculine. Neither alone has unfettered access to truth, but psychological health and happiness depend upon a harmonious dialectic between them -- a marriage of opposites, as it were.

Likewise, we all know that in a highly charged emotional situation, it is possible to argue falsely by recourse to common-sense logic. You see this all the time in male-female relations, in which, say, a woman will make an emotionally charged comment, to which the man responds with mere logic, and they're off to the races. The astute man will discern the deeper content of the emotional communication -- the emotional truth that the woman is trying to convey, usually about their relationship -- and not respond to it in a literal manner. It's like two very different forms of communication, and each must learn the other's language.

Anyone who's been happily married for a long time knows that this leads to emotional growth. It's difficult to say this without sounding condescending, but this is the reason why women, when they marry, tend to become both happier and more conservative -- because of the male influence. It's just a fact. Or at least a tendency.

But this is not to suggest that men don't equally benefit from the relationship, since they become more deeply "emotionally intelligent," and researchers are only now understanding the importance this neglected concept. I am in awe of Mrs. G's maternal emotional intelligence, and how attuned she is to Future Leader. (And of course, it should be borne in mind that we are dealing in great generalizations to which it is easy to find exceptions. For example, truly, Margaret Thatcher was a much greater man than any contemporary male liberal I can think of.)

I think we can see this same dynamic in the dysfunctional relationship between the left -- which is so obviously like a child or hysterical (the operative word is hysterical) female -- and the right, which too often deals with the left as if mere logic will satisfy them. It doesn't work and it won't work, as anyone who's tried to have a rational conversation with a leftist knows. In their shrill paranoia, narcissism, and hysteria, it's as if the left is crying out in pain, so that their literal words are completely unimportant. If it were a micro-relationship, we'd know how to deal with them.

But in the macro realm, how does one respond to a whole psychoclass of histrionic girly men? (And please keep in mind that we are specifically talking about a form of dysfunctional feminized consciousness, not the normal or healthy variety. A radical feminist is not a normal woman, any more than Dennis Kucinich is a normal man.) In fact, to be fair, the left is mainly composed of hysterical women (of both sexes) and of adolescent boys and girls. In both cases, there is a developmental arrest, the failure to become a proper man or woman. Indeed, this is one of the premises of leftism, which rejects any concept of a spiritual telos to human psychological growth. Rather, all is relative, so that no way of living or being is superior to any other.

Just as emotion can be used to distort logical truth, logic can be used to distort emotional truth. Here is a fine example of the latter from dailykos, which uses bizarre pseudo-logic and dubious "facts" -- facts that are actually created out of a deep unconscious need -- to propagate perverse lies:

"The social and economic achievements of the revolutionary regime in Iran in the past 25 years look quite progressive in reducing poverty and social inequalities.... Compared to rising inequality in the United States and Israel, ranked numbers one and two for social inequality among developed nations, the Iranians look pretty damn good.

"That, of course, is the problem. If Iran, rather like Venezuela, becomes a regional leader and examplar of social democracy, it becomes a threat to the corporatist and militarist elites that dominate the political classes of Washington and Tel Aviv and exploit the mineral and oil wealth of underdeveloped nations.

"Women and children rarely suffer the isolation, poverty and violence in Iran that so many suffer from family breakdown in America. Women in Iran are now universally educated, taking 65 percent of university places, marrying later, having fewer children, and driving social change. Even Iran has a vibrant gay subculture. The United States imprisons a higher proportion of its population than Iran (or any other nation) does, and that proportion continues to rise despite falling crime rates. Every society is different, and our values are not their values in some ways, but which government best serves the interests of its people is an open question in my mind given that the vast majority of Iranians have benefitted from the social and economic progress of the past 25 years."

Yes, it's crazy. In short, whatever "truth" there is in any of this is being mobilized in the service of a series of monstrous lies. But how could you ever begin to help such a person realize the extent to which their consciousness -- their entire being -- has been infiltrated by the Lie? That they aren't just lying -- to which it would be easy to respond -- but they are a Lie?

This is why I think it was naive of Dean Bollinger to think that his sharp words would have any effect on Ahmadinejad, who also embodies the Lie. One way or another, someone like Ahmadinejad needs to be liquidated, not debated. It's like the police inviting a criminal to come to the police station to lecture them about how bad the police are, and then letting the criminal go his merry way. If the police said, "yes, but we gave the criminal a good talking-to before their lecture," this wouldn't exactly help matters.

(And now an older, somewhat related post from almost two years ago, since I'm out of time.)

One of the central concerns of Jewish theological metaphysics is the idea of separation. When God creates the world, he separates order from primordial chaos, light from darkness, water from land. Without the first step of separation, no further development is possible. This is why Judaism stresses the importance of maintaining and not blending the differences between male and female, adult and child, human and animal, civilized and barbaric, religion and magic, holy and profane.

It is interesting that the American political system -- at least in the 20th century -- spontaneously bifurcated into two-parties more or less mirroring the antecedent maternal and paternal spheres. As it evolved, the Republican party came to represent masculine virtues such as competition, maintaining strict rules (“law and order”), standards over compassion, delayed gratification, and respect for the ways of the father -- that is, conserving what had been handed down by previous generations of fathers, and not just assuming in our adolescent hubris that we know better than they.

The Democratic party, on the other hand, came to represent the realm of maternal nurturance -- compassion over standards (i.e., racial quotas), idealization of the impulses (just as a mother is delighted in the instinctual play of her child), mercy over judgment (reduced prison sentences, criminal rights, etc.), cradle-to-grave welfare, a belief that we can seduce our enemies and do not have to defeat them with violence (Carter, Clinton, Kerry), and the notion that meaning, truth and values are all arbitrary and subject to change (just as is the emotional world in general).

It has become a banality to point out that something is broken in our political system, in that the two parties no longer work together, and seem to be completely at odds. Pundits tell us that the tension and paranoia between the parties has never been this intense. Even if this is an exaggeration, it nevertheless reflects the psychological reality of the situation. That is, there is no question that people feel this tension and bitterness in ways that they didn’t in earlier times in their lives. (At least liberals feel it; the “silent majority” of conservatives probably felt it more in the 1960s and 1970s.)

What is really going on here? In my opinion, we are experiencing a collapse of the covenant between mother and father as represented in the previous maternal/paternal two-party system. It is as if we are children living in a home where mother and father no longer get along, and are bickering constantly. In fact, that is probably putting it too mildly, because the current situation has gone beyond mere arguing, to the point that the masculine and feminine spheres are no longer communicating at all and are going through a very messy and acrimonious divorce. Both sides are “lawyered up” and ready to go for the throat.

I believe we may trace this divorce to the 1960s, when mother government started to become so all powerful that there was almost no role for father. Of course, this began to change in the 1980s, when father began reasserting himself because of the cultural, political and economic chaos that ensued, but by then, something else had happened. That is, the age old distinctions between mother and father and adult and child had begun to attenuate. For example, the feminist movement of the 1960s and '70s had very little to do with honoring femininity, but generally degraded and devalued it. It largely became a vehicle for the expression of female envy, giving angry and maladjusted women license to imitate the men they envied. After all, few women are less feminine than the typical NOW activist. Nor are they masculine, however. A woman cannot actually become a man, but can only become a monstrous blending of male and female.

Importantly, this is not to suggest that a woman cannot develop her masculine side or a man his feminine side. What we are talking about is a complete nullification of the differences, a kind of magical, self-imposed blindness, so that the differences are blended (because they are not acknowledged). As feminists used to say, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

The other main psychological mutation that occurred beginning with the 1960s was the eradication of the differences between adult and child. Up until then, there was a clear difference between the spheres of adult and child, and everyone knew it. When I was growing up in the '60s, I had my interests and my parents had theirs, and there was very little intersection between the two -- for example, baseball with my father. But we dressed differently, listened to different kinds of music, enjoyed different activities, read different literature, liked different movies, etc.

But that has all changed now. Here again it is critical to point out that there is nothing at all wrong with an adult maintaining contact with the child part of himself. In fact, doing so is vital for creativity, spontaneity and play. Again, as in the blending of male and female, the problem arises when the differences between adult and child are obliterated, which creates a hybrid monster that is neither adult nor child but both at the same time. This affects both adults and children, for our society has become a plague of adult children and childish adults -- that is, prematurely sexualized children who, at the same time, are burdened with all kinds of inappropriate concerns about college and career, and childish adults who psychologically do not grow beyond the age of 21 or so, and never enter the realm of the truly adult. (An excellent book that discusses this phenomenon in detail is Neil Postman’s The Disappearance of Childhood.

As a result, what our two-party political system has now come down to is a battle between the “blenders” and the “separators.” Nothing bothers the blenders more than adult males such as Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or John Roberts -- remember Diane Feinstein, who couldn't vote for Roberts for supreme court justice because she wanted to know how he felt as a man? In short, she wanted him to be more of a male-female hybrid, like herself and her constituents. Simply applying the rule of law is too masculine. We need some female “wiggle room” in the constitution. As Dennis Prager has observed, the problem with this kind of feminized thinking is that it is perfectly appropriate in the micro realm, but only becomes inappropriate and dysfunctional when applied to the macro.

The modern conservative movement is not just trying to preserve the traditional male element, but the traditional separation of the various spheres in general -- civilized vs. barbaric, animal vs, human, adult vs. child -- while the Democratic party is the party of mannish women (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Gloria Allred), feminized men (e.g., Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards), adult children (Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Bill Maher, et al), rank sexual confusion ("transgendered, queer, 'questioning,' intersexed, curious," etc) and even animal humans (PETA members who believe that killing six million chickens is morally indistinguishable from murdering six million Jews, radical environmentalists, etc.). And it is almost impossible to engage in rational debate with the adult child, who has the cynicism of a world-weary grown up but the wisdom of a child, or with the male-female hybrid, who possesses an emotionalized reason that is easily hijacked by the passions. This is not so much a disagreement between the content of thought as its very form.

Ultimately it is a revolt against Father, not just on earth, but in “heaven,” that is, the Father who created all these annoying separations to begin with, and who reminds us of our own lack of omnipotence. It's the same existential whine in a new battle. For the sad reality is that a woman cannot actually be a man and an adult cannot actually be a child without disfiguring their humanity. But this is another realm that the left would like to obliterate -- the separation between the divine and human, which may, come to think of it, be the ultimate source of this loud and messy political divorce we are all going through. Perhaps it is unwise to marry outside your faith after all.

38 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

From the Kos excerpt:

"Now, the usual crowd can be expected to comment on women, gays and political dissidents as being targets for repression in Iran. Without minimising the issues, I'm not convinced that the case isn't overstated and that the repression isn't outweighed by wider social advances. Women and children rarely suffer the isolation, poverty and violence in Iran that so many suffer from family breakdown in America."

Well golly gee, it sounds like Iran is actually a liberal utopia! Educated women and vibrant gay culture in a setting reminiscent of America in the 1950s? Let the exodus begin! The only thing missing is apple pie. (Ignore the cognitive dissonance - if you plug your ears and yell "La la la la" - or better yet "Bush is Hitler" - for a couple of hours, you won't notice the conflicting voices in your head...)

9/26/2007 09:14:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

"...it is almost impossible to engage in rational debate with the adult child, who has the cynicism of a world-weary grown up but the wisdom of a child, or with the male-female hybrid, who possesses an emotionalized reason that is easily hijacked by the passions."

A perfect and exact definition of the situation faced by anyone wishing to resolve current problems!

9/26/2007 09:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no offense bob, but you are a mousy wisp of a man - and a talk therapist on top of it. what i mean is i trust what you have to say when it comes to the feminization of men!

9/26/2007 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Anon -

Well, he's man enough to sign his writings, and has enough internal umph to capitalize!

9/26/2007 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger Mizz E said...

Compare and contrast the blender; the separator.

9/26/2007 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

anonymous--

I'm sorry I haven't had enough time for you, but I've been so busy at the office. How about if we get away together this weekend, just you and I?

9/26/2007 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

no offense bob, but you are a mousy wisp of a man - and a talk therapist on top of it. what i mean is i trust what you have to say when it comes to the feminization of men!

Says the man hiding behind the anonymous.

"By the same measure ye mete, the same shall be measured unto you."

9/26/2007 10:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh bob i like you plenty. but this gendered nonsense (anonymity is, what, feminine?) is not a part of english grammar for a reason. leave the sexism to the romantics.

9/26/2007 10:15:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Anonymity is feminine, due to the protean nature of the underworld. The fluid feminine rebels against the Name of the Father. Way it is.

9/26/2007 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger Robin Starfish said...

"One of the central concerns of Jewish theological metaphysics is the idea of separation. When God creates the world, he separates order from primordial chaos, light from darkness, water from land. Without the first step of separation, no further development is possible."

And Christian theology mirrors the same at the individual level - being of the world is to be still in the womb, comfortable but not spiritually awake. To walk 'upright' in the world requires rebirth as a stranger in a strange land.

The collective known as anonymous will never understand this unless the breath of life is spanked into them.

Waaaahh!

Alight
foldingunfolding
time is but the breath of god
inhalexhaling

9/26/2007 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Anon,
I'm sure you wrote the word "trust" when you meant to write the word "relate".

Bob,
One of the first things I noticed about you when I first began reading your blog was that you were able to retain your common sense and yet be deeply connected to your unconscious/spiritual side. Because of that balance, you are able to communicate spiritual cause and effect into daily human affairs. That is a feat which seems almost non existant in todays new agey environment.
I'm sure your psychological training has aided your insights and evolution into your ability to recognise and separate, yet retain and balance the two, conscious and unconscious.
Perhaps you can post some personal anecdotal epiphany type detail into your progression in being able to balance being in the world but not of the world.

9/26/2007 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

I think people mistake their gender (sex) as being a human thing that they project onto the world, when in fact it seems that genderedness is a prior result of separation, of which our own sex is a reflection of. What is projected is the demons regarding gendered things. Like, for instance -- reacting to the 'phallic' nature of guns, skyscrapers, etc. That's a projection of the human image of sex/gender onto the world. While a skyscraper may be masculine, it is not because of its shape, but likely, something of primordial masculinity pierces in, whether it be the spear catching the fish, the star burning through the nebula, the meteor striking the moon.

If you can't handle the heat, get outta the kitchen on this one.

9/26/2007 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Another Bob said...

Slightly off-topic, but I believe it describes a frequently mentioned (here) IVY League "feature"

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1033854

-another bob

9/26/2007 12:07:00 PM  
Anonymous another bob said...

second attempt ...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/
op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1033854

9/26/2007 12:09:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

What's odd to me, is from my gender-guesser, I can rarely, if ever, get female. If I get close its usually from a male (leftist...)

Need 300 words or more, though. Maybe someone can get me a few samples, upwards of 50...?

9/26/2007 12:12:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Here's Joyce's invocation of the eternal feminine:

"In the name of Annah the Allmaziful, the Everliving, the Bringer of Plurabilities, haloed be her eve, her singtime sung, her rill be run, unhemmed as it is uneven! Her untitled mamafesta memorialising the Mosthighest has gone by many names at disjointed times..."

9/26/2007 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger CrypticLife said...

So let's see:

The feminine is,
represented by the unconscious,
emotional,
illogical,
possibly hysterical,
liberal,
less happy than when with the masculine.

9/26/2007 02:24:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Can't we get any RealTrolls around here? You know, ones with some Meat on which to feast & not these pathetic waaahhnnabe vegeanons? A girl could starve to death on such a umphless diet. Sheesh.

I'm on page 43 of The Death of the Grownup. So far I'm impressed with what West has to say & can recommend it. She documents how in the early 50's a reversal occurred, wherein adults started catering to the child-world instead of children being expected to strive for maturity & how to fit in to the adult world. Interesting framing. She argues that the damage was done & the structures in place long before the excesses of the '60s.

Synchronicity within the last week:
1) reading The Death of the Grownup
2) excellent OC posts
3) documentaries on W. Churchill, pre WWII appeasement & the London Blitz
4) Ahmadinnerplate Circus of the Bizarre
5) The War on PBS, 6 hrs so far

It all fits together, right here, right now. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

God help us.

9/26/2007 02:29:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

cryptic life:

You're essentially wrong.

9/26/2007 02:41:00 PM  
Blogger Sal said...

I got your sexualized child right here:
http://gaude-idlehands.blogspot.com

9/26/2007 02:49:00 PM  
Blogger Sal said...

Or you could just click on my name.
Sorry...

9/26/2007 02:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Amy the amazon said...

I agree with Bob that the Iranian leader should be rubbed out, along with his poisonous ideology and government machinery and personnel.

Every day we wait gives them more time to prepare defensive positions. Times a wasting.

I don't agree with Bob's sexist idiocy, however. Women are in fact the real power in any culture; men serve the dreams of women and in fact women incite the warlike atmosphere that the clueless men take credit for.

Why do you think we are going to put the smack on Iran? It's because American women want, well, lots of stuff...and there's nothing wrong with that.

9/26/2007 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

"It's because American women want, well, lots of stuff..."

Did you seriously just suggest we are at war with terrorists because women want stuff?

I pity any man who falls into your harpy claws.

Yet another lunatic who apparently thinks life is nothing but a set of power struggles. Or rather, more likely, the same old same old one-note troll.

9/26/2007 04:18:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

It sure is easy to get all caught up in the world and its foolishness. As I draw back to find my simpler center, I am reminded what the writer of Ecclesiates said -

"I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil — this is the gift of God." (3:12-13)

In spite of the dead seriousness of reality, here is a simple gift. Take it.

9/26/2007 05:26:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Another Bob's article "...Seriously, is there any organization other than the Ivy League where you could hear the phrase “Let’s invite Hitler!” without immediately hearing “Dude, what have you been smoking?” Members of the Aryan Nation, huddled around their shortwaves in Idaho survivalist camps, are listening to the coverage from Columbia U and saying “What are they - nuts?”

The dangers we face come from Big Oil? Big Corporations? Big Pharmacy? Nah, if you want to fear something that is fearsome, fear Big Ivy.

Julie, I think you pegged the amazon, more Ames than 'amy'.

Ximeze, seen the picture of poor old Uncle Bernard? Cuz can barely find enough troll meat to keep him fed.

9/26/2007 08:15:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Hey, Van. Some of us raccoons may be Idaho spuds without shortwaves, swastikas, or skin heads. Well, two out of three ain't bad. Just sayin'.

9/26/2007 08:30:00 PM  
Blogger Robin Starfish said...

Members of the Aryan Nation, huddled around their shortwaves in Idaho survivalist camps...

History update:

They no longer exist. Butler was brought down by a lawsuit in 2001 and all his property given to the woman who was attacked by his guards. It's now pasture. His followers splintered and left for other states. Butler himself died 3 years ago in deserved disgrace. Unfortunately, it will take a few more generations to lose the association of those couple hundred nutjobs with Idaho history.

So when you think of Idaho, think...let's see...how about wolves? We have tons of them now and they're way better than Aryans.

Especially with ketchup!

9/26/2007 09:45:00 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Parallel universes exist - study

I believe that the scientific "community" -- well, that large portion of it which is atheist, if not leftist -- is becoming obsessed with "proving" the so-called "many worlds" hypothesis since they are staring the reality of a Created One Cosmos right in the face. Truth to a leftist atheist scientist is like a crucifix to a vampire -- they simply cannot abide it. Lacking any actual scientific evidence -- nor even the possibility of such evidence -- they take solace in these fanciful flights of mathematical speculation.

Doesn't this remind you of all those "Global Warming is really, REALLY, true! Honestly! For sure this time! Watch my hands!" stories that appear with such depressing regularity in the MSM sluice?

I must say it is nice to watch them squirm. Imagine if they were forced to read OCUG! There'd be a massive moonbat meltdown in the editorial bullpen at arch-communist junk-science rags like the New Scientist.

9/26/2007 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"But how could you ever begin to help such a person realize the extent to which their consciousness -- their entire being -- has been infiltrated by the Lie? That they aren't just lying -- to which it would be easy to respond -- but they are a Lie?

This is why I think it was naive of Dean Bollinger to think that his sharp words would have any effect on Ahmadinejad, who also embodies the Lie. One way or another, someone like Ahmadinejad needs to be liquidated, not debated. It's like the police inviting a criminal to come to the police station to lecture them about how bad the police are, and then letting the criminal go his merry way. If the police said, "yes, but we gave the criminal a good talking-to before their lecture," this wouldn't exactly help matters."

Precisely, Bob, and O! So well said! That is, by far, the best analogy I have heard!

I extend that same Coonsense, to our President and inept State Department.

The Terrorist of Tehran should never, ever, have been allowed on US soil to begin with.

And I wholeheartedly support Fred Thompson's idea to bring ground zero to the Ackmad and his ilk!
Let's give him an extreme close up of what it means to be a big ground Zero!

Liquidate, and well done, indeed!

And for those who argue that it was a good thing to "show" the American people what Ackmad stands for:

I have yet to see a prominent lefty who has changed his or her mind about the Iranian govt. and their intentions.

I hope (I really do!) that your faith in the truth about Ackmad and his bloodthirsty goons bein' shown (again!) somehow convinces the Leftists that they truly are evil, but so far, it seems like they are suppporting them even more.

Afterall, they hate Bush. How bad can they be?

Therein lies the rub, my friends.
I predict that this will change absolutely nothing for the better, and sadly, I predict that the psychopath's of Iran will gain even more support from the left if Americas and worldwide.

Please, prove to me that I am wrong.

9/27/2007 12:16:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Sorry, in America, and worldwide (among the left).

9/27/2007 12:19:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Anyone who's been happily married for a long time knows that this leads to emotional growth. It's difficult to say this without sounding condescending, but this is the reason why women, when they marry, tend to become both happier and more conservative -- because of the male influence. It's just a fact. Or at least a tendency.

But this is not to suggest that men don't equally benefit from the relationship, since they become more deeply "emotionally intelligent," and researchers are only now understanding the importance this neglected concept."

Hear here! I can attest to that!
Trust me, on this (you know you want to)!

9/27/2007 12:23:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"The astute man will discern the deeper content of the emotional communication -- the emotional truth that the woman is trying to convey, usually about their relationship -- and not respond to it in a literal manner."

Word! Do...not...respond...literally!
Think you'll win, guys? Probably...but no, you'll ultimately lose.

Read between the lines, get a clue, and decipher!
I can't stress that enough!
LISTEN to what she is really sayin'!

Hey, I'm just lookin' out for you, Bro's!
This is advanced Sailor Wisdom, so accept it, and you'll be much happier as a result.

Trust me! :^)

9/27/2007 12:31:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Smoov-
They truly are grasping for straws.
They are desperate! The heat is on!

9/27/2007 12:34:00 AM  
Blogger CrypticLife said...

Smoov,

Most atheist scientists are not obsessed with proving alternate worlds. In fact, from the article, "It is a bizarre idea which has been dismissed as fanciful by many experts."

Believe it or not, the majority of scientists are interested in truth. Sure, they like paychecks better and will sometimes color the truth to get one, which is basically what these theoreticians (I would hesitate to call them scientists) are doing. That doesn't mean they hate truth, though.

9/27/2007 07:08:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

CrypticLife said...

So let's see:

The feminine is,
represented by the unconscious,
emotional,
illogical,
possibly hysterical,
liberal,
less happy than when with the masculine.


How about this:

The unconscious,
the emotional,
the illogical,
possibly the hysterical,
the 'liberal'
can be represented by the feminine.

That might clear up the essential incorrectness...

9/27/2007 08:17:00 AM  
Anonymous capn' kurtz said...

Er..Gahdad?
Uh...I am usually not one to correct the Master of the floating universe..but...just this once...
I was reading your message (somewhat delayed for which Mea Cu-pologiza) and was enjoying your reasoning until I got to the part about the Biblical proposition (and its converse being equally true) and all of a sudden my symmetrical unconscious popped up on the internal desktop and it said you were not quite right..ahem...(not to put too fine a point on it)...but that as Jesus died for mans transgressions against God, Jesus didn't die for Gods transgressions against man (the masculine), but rather, rose to end God's judgment against man...(the feminine)
but I could be wrong...heck, the 'ol symmetrical unconscious has been on the whack and doesn't get out much anymore.....seems ya gotta match the ying column with the yang column..hit that balance thang......

9/27/2007 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

God's 'judgment' against men is none other than the conviction of man's conscience against himself because of the holiness of God.

The persecutory anger - often expressed - is not God judging man, but man 'judging' God.

Thus that unconscious need, I suppose.

9/27/2007 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Teri said...

I do get tired of adult children. I work next to one. His girlfriend just had a baby girl. The Christian men at work are trying to convince him that he should get married. But he doesn't want to make that "commitment". I just want to shake him. He's already made a commitment, one with a lot more reaching consequences than marriage would entail.

I used to be a strong feminist, having been raised by a single mom in the days when that was uncommon. But like the Dems, they've lied to me once too often. Somehow, my favorite time in history is becoming the 40s, back when we had grownups, men and women who could accept the idea that there was a difference.

9/27/2007 05:14:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home