Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Ideology Before Science (The Differences Between Women and Men)


I am not whining about the comments that the Harvard President Summers made when attending a conference this year. He was quoted at that conference; I am paraphrasing, saying that he advocated studying whether or not there were biological explanations factors for the lower numbers of women achieving top scores on subject matter such as math and science testing.

Upon hearing that statement, coming forth, three University Presidents from other schools replied after being motivated by these comments. "Speculation that 'innate differences' may be a significant cause of under representation by women in science and engineering may rejuvenate old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases," they wrote.

I believe what they where trying to say, is what I have stated for years now. That there was, and still is an innate difference genetically speaking between men and women the results of nature’s evolutionary behavior patterns for safeguarding a species survival.

Such as those factors offered within the biological and/or physical structures demonstrated between men and women, yet not mentally in their nature. Those innate factors of differences and one’s mental capabilities are being and have been modified by culture through technology. And have been changing more towards equality between the sexes than in our early years of our expansion.

Basic rule 101 evolution states that in order for a species to continue their existence there had to be innate differences, between the two sexes that had more to do with survival and functional awareness, than consciousness and technology. Those innate differences were more to do with strength and endurance than thinking and contemplation.

So in those early years of our advancement as a species, it seems that those innate differences were very important for our survival as a race. Those innate differences had to result in the physical as well as the biological structures yet not within the mental differences. The latter is not from nature’s illustration but rather a portrayal of a species sexual characteristic view point. This is usually imposed by men upon an unwarranted endorsement of and by women.

In order for the experience of evolution to perform, it’s process of life’s expansion of our functional awareness, in our case that is speaking. Evolution had to make sure that one of the opposite members of our species had to be stronger than the other in ways that would be a benefit to our existence and their survival.

Thus ensuring that life’s beings of functional awareness goes forth. It would not benefit life’s existence if both were equal in strength, and physical appearance. In those early years with nature’s environment being an often very lethal and treacherous place in which to exist. So those innate differences had to hold true.

Yet in time, this will, has changed, and will continue changing until the differences are not sexes inabilities. Rather personal difference of choice in learning and performing any task that they will choose.

Evolutions diagram was aware of this problem for the survival of a species. So the innate differences made sure that one of the sexes, usually that was of child bearing the woman, remained weaker and more delicate than the other. It was nature’s way of keeping one somewhat safer. While the other protected, defended, and provided with a greater advantage. It would make no sense if both where in this position at a great risk of death or harm.

In particular, the one carrying the child would be at a greater risk of hindering nature’s strategy. If there were not those innate differences then what would have ensured that our species would continue to flourish if this was not meant to be in those early years, what would have been?

For both were innately equal in thinking and thoughts as to what part they had to play to ensure that life goes on. Woman’s thoughts went towards the home base child rearing and those nurturing aspects that were just as important, if not more, in our early survival as the human race.

While men’s thoughts went towards the defending, providing and controlling those other needed aspects towards their existence that were a danger to fulfilling their goals of continued existence.

As for those innate differences in various kinds of task performances between the sexes, it’s not as much mental as it was physical. What mental differences that there are, are not the results, again, of nature’s processes. But rather the end results of natures misunderstood meaning for survival.

Resulting in men’s dictation through their cultures while using their strength along with their bodily structures to impose as laws the standards to which they are the rule. When evolutionary laws and rules are simply applied to nature’s lower life’s forces of a functional awareness and their developmental processes in nature, the factor we have to take in to account then are the physical and biological, within limited awareness.

These rules and laws become twisted when we compare nature’s evolutionary progression to the higher form of its purpose, us, the only species that hold consciousness within our awareness. We must look at circumstances other than those of innate differences to explain the mental differences between the two sexes.

It's not that women do not have the inner ability innately to do certain forms of what’s often been referred to as men orientated task fields of endeavors. It’s only that they throughout time, until recent years, have not been able or in certain cases not allowed to use that part of their minds thinking and it’s contemplating factors that help simulate those thoughts towards some of the same fields, as have most men in those questionable fields.

Now with technology and thoughtful thinking women, they are now viewing those fields that held little thought, or none at all, towards what they were and are capable of now performing. The more thought that they put forth in those men dominating fields of undertaking the more they will infiltrate the boundaries of dissimilarity. They may, and even some times will, perform as well if not better in certain areas than men do or have.

Cultures are basically men dictating the drive modes of thinking and therefore control the thoughts that follow towards their belief system. Those thoughts are only restricted by their limitations. When a woman is not encouraged to show interest in certain fields of thoughts and work performance. They seek neither those thoughts nor activities that lay before them in the same way that most men do.

It’s not that there are differences in their nature, but rather to the thinking and in the amount of time spent contemplating on subject matter. Those differences are not innate but rather installed by culture and more so by the men that rule its ways. So within the unlimited awareness of knowledge offered within any given culture and its technology, is the only way that equality in actions and thoughts will come forth.

As far as doing any scientific research, that might support and defend his statements. I say go for it, yet remember that research will in some cases rejuvenate those old myths and will reinforce without a doubt negative stereotypes and reaction biases.

Was it not similar thoughts and statements made before concerning the differences between the races? That desire to prove within the influence of science, that certain people were genetically inferior to others. Well it fell very short of its goals, yet there were those that insisted that it was worth the look into the research backed by science, well was it, and will this as well? If any thing, what it showed us was that we are all the same even with our differences, not the innate ones as much as in the mental abilities.

Knowledge, encouragement in thinking and today’s technology are factors that helped change natures rules and it’s by laws. Consciousness over functional awareness changes thoughts and thinking. Adding in today’s technology and that’s even more reason to see that natures innateness between the sexes, is no longer holding true as it once did.

Woman and man now can and do perform similar, if not some of the same types of physical and mental tasks. In which are being performed in today’s world and they will even involve them selves more in our future world as well.

Alone or together, along side or away, as equal existences is where they both belonged at the beginning and shall in the end. Women do not need men to help them raise their offspring, nor is to provide for them, defend and protect them or even to survive, as much in today’s environmental and technological world as they once did.

They have more of a choice towards wanting instead of needing. They have their own thoughts as to what they can do or want to do. It’s up to our culture and all other cultures as well as to those that are the power foundation behind those cultures. To see that a woman’s will of thought and her desire to think can be achieved now and in the future as well freely with out restriction nor intimation.

Those are the only mental limitations that I see and they are not innate, but rather instilled under false assumptions by our own culture and others as well. And held there as a result of preconception imposed by men, some what backed by nature yet misrepresented, as to what a woman is and does or does not do, with her thoughts, her thinking and her body, how about you?
- Jan/uisiom

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Sixth Sense in Animals


You had stated that after the Asian disaster that occurred recently, that very few animal bodies, if any were found. As I like to say, this has stimulated one of the old ways of thinking, as if it was a new thought being brought forth. Those animals in general have the noticeable ability to sense approaching peril. To paraphrase, your thoughts, so if it’s true, is there anything mythological about their ability? No. Is it what we often refer to as the sixth sense? Yes. So, just what is the sixth sense, from a thoughtful approach?

You go on to state, again paraphrasing if I may, if we use the reference to John Locke’s thought complex of the inner workings on his primary and secondary characters, involving the thought process within our own very being, we can see the characters and influences that objects have to produce ideas in our minds. He goes on to state that tertiary characters are manipulated to produce change in an object. The primary characters exist in objects themselves, and exist in the bodies themselves. The secondary characters are mind-dependent and exist only when perceived. They include color, smell, taste, sound and other sensible traits.

As you have stated, again paraphrasing, let us assume something like this division seizes a form of truth. Then, as has been stated, it follows that many, perhaps a significant amount of secondary characters are possibly depending on the viewer’s sense organs. Since secondary characters are the result of objects interacting with the spectators sense organs, different sense organs would cause the perception of some sort of secondary feature.

You refer to taking a look at another class as a consideration for a primary feature, the electromagnetic properties of an object, using the proper sense organ; it should be possible to perceive these properties as well.

Continuing with your thoughts, this possibility can be seen in one of many ideas giving way to thoughts on bird migration. It is thought that they may have the ability to perceive the earth’s electrical magnetic force fields. If birds can navigate with the aid of an electrical magnetically-sensitive faculty, it isn’t much of a stretch to take for granted that if birds do, then why not many of the other animals as well. They too could have similar faculties providing them with that electrical magnetic communication. I believe that there are other equivalent informational transmissions concerning the world around them that they are receiving as well.

You then stated that we as humans do not have this ability, as does the animal kingdom. A point of Addition, Clarification and Correction, the latest findings are about two years old and state that science has found a part within the brain, frontal lobe area, which plays a part within our controlling sense organ the brain. Some people are able, as with animals, of perceiving a natural catastrophe from the wavering electrical magnetic fields in a flex of discrepancy around them. At first, it was only recognized as existing in animals and thought of as not existing in humans.

Well guess what, we do and some of us are more receptive towards its use, mostly unintentionally, than others. I believe that throughout time, our evolution has dampened and suppressed its use in most of our life’s ways. Unlike animals that do not have that luxury of modern technology to give them the ability to ease up on that part of their sense organ that is needed for their preservation, the same as ours.

As you have stated, natural disasters do not happen randomly, yes, they do follow certain pre-existing conditions. The activity from movements between tectonic plates helps cause earthquakes, we have eruptions by volcanic actions, and many on going forms of atmospheric conditions result in tornados, etc. which all have a predetermined signal of those natural occurrences, therefore in some animals as well as humans, to put it basically, home in on and interpret those impressions. If your point was that there are many intrinsic sensing signals being transmitted relating to those events prior to those events actually taking place, you are right.

You say that it’s not then unreasonable to assume that animals with different and additional sensory faculties could already know how to detect the conditions that proceed natural disaster-especially considering the evolutionary benefit of doing so.

Your Conclusion:Because there is no reason to think it impossible or unlikely for (some) animals to be able to detect conditions that usually precede natural disasters, I think the common anecdotal evidence for animals having some sort of (non-mythical) "sixth sense" is enough to make it reasonable to believe they might. Denying the possibility might even be unreasonable. Still, we should remember that attributing such abilities to animals doesn't require that we think anything "mythical" or "supernatural" is going on - there are convincing explanations from within a completely mundane worldview.

My Conclusion,

I agree with your conclusion to a position, yet you could have gone even farther with stating, as I will. Not only have a few of those out there in the animal world had this ability that we as a race also have. Yet over time we have become detached and alienated from its use, the guidance and mostly unaware of its presence until just recently. So if we start developing this inner sensing ability or sixth sense, who knows where it will lead along side of science in foretelling many earth events of natural motion.

Then it only makes common wisdom that if it was in nature’s procedures as a result of the experience of evolution. Well, are we then not part of that same process of arrangement under nature as the animals? If we are as many claim that we are, then we must have that inner ability as well as they do in the animal kingdom. This is one of several factors behind the inner workings involving preservation of a species. The ability to be capable of sensing the impressions emanating from the electrical magnetic force fields, and then translating that message into a forewarning as to events that are about to occur within their surrounding area, or at least close by. As you so neatly put it, especially considering the evolutionary benefit of doing so, that is having a sixth sense of intelligence to help channel us.

I believe that the more we depended on culture the less we depended on nature. The farther away from nature, which we travel as a culture, the farther we distance ourselves from its foremost inner teachings and workings, we could eventually misplace its use and lose its purpose. I believe that we are not part of nature’s principle, yet we became part of nature’s diagram. Acknowledgement is acceptance.

Jan / uisiom