Of course, as a woman I have little to say on this particular topic, but the isomers analogy was too thought-provoking for me not to comment on the post (or it hit too close to home because of Chemistry finals a few days ago... people who set exam times before 9am should be imprisoned for life -_-).
If I might be allowed to respectfully scrutinize this part:
"I am referring to the natural behavioral psychology witnessed, the natural patters that emerge based off of biological identity which transcends social constructs. Up until recently, the social constructs of male and female were largely based off of these natural inclinations and dispositions."
Could it be said that lot of past customs were still relying on definitions, just of a more explicit and essentialist kind (as in trying to speedrun self-actualization through societal collectivism rather than individuation)? I think that risks lending itself to a performative existence as well, since the norms are still imposed externally. To that end, I agree wholeheartedly that the only way out of the house of mirrors is to find (if not make) oneself. To paraphrase one of my past articles, light can travel in a vacuum, and even if there is nothing/no one else, one can still become someone with inner light, independent of an observer.
One can probably never know themselves until they do this on their own ... and on that note:
“Of course, as a woman I have little to say on this particular topic, but the isomers analogy was too thought-provoking for me not to comment on the post (or it hit too close to home because of Chemistry finals a few days ago... people who set exam times before 9am should be imprisoned for life -_-).”
Thanks for reading as well as your insightful thoughts. This essay initially started out directed at my daughters but after seeing a few articles on the stack I addressed it (predominantly) towards men. This is very applicable to women as well and I could have framed this to be broader. I am glad isomer got your attention. I have explained this concept elsewhere before; it did not occur to me then to use the isomer framing I did today. It seems… fitting. (pun intended)
“If I might be allowed to respectfully scrutinize this part:”
I am referring to the natural behavioral psychology witnessed, the natural patters that emerge based off of biological identity which transcends social constructs. Up until recently, the social constructs of male and female were largely based off of these natural inclinations and dispositions.
““Could it be said that lot of past customs were still relying on definitions, just of a more explicit and essentialist kind (as in trying to speedrun self-actualization through societal collectivism rather than individuation)? I think that risks lending itself to a performative existence as well, since the norms are still imposed externally. To that end, I agree wholeheartedly that the only way out of the house of mirrors is to find (if not make) oneself. To paraphrase one of my past articles, light can travel in a vacuum, and even if there is nothing/no one else, one can still become someone with inner light, independent of an observer.””
I do not disagree. This requires some nuance. Truly, I explained this concept at much greater length in another essay where I added the details I am about to briefly do. I should have added more to this paragraph, but I am attempting to modify how I write. I have to force myself into brevity and it seems I cut myself short here. What I am attempting to convey here regarding gender roles is that in the past the social constructs more or less were templated off of, or were in closer relation to, the natural biological constructs. Which as you said could some cultures be trying to speedrun self-actualization – absolutely. (Some Chesterton’s fences are built with this concept in mind) The problem with this is many- one of which I touched on in the Schrodinger’s God essay. Essentially, self-actualization must be chosen, not compelled. (This could be an enormous conversation) With that said, naturally to some extent, there will be a measure of performance even in the more natural configurations especially if the actions are compelled and not chosen. However, as a general rule, It seems to me, the closer the social construct (which is mediated by external forces) is to our biological one, the easier it is for an individual to actualize. The modern world- and not just because of the transhuman movement- has developed constructs that demonize the natural, which can hinder self-actualization.
The difference regarding definitions has to do with our technical and symbolic relationship to language, which has demonstrably changed over the past century. (longer but technology among other things has accelerated this) Previously, the definition was developed as an observation of truth, now it is molded to shape it. This is a profound difference.
Your example about light traveling in a vacuum is clever. Yes, Truth just is despite our acceptance or awareness of it. To take a stab at the cat- it is either dead or alive- regardless if I look. Same can be said of our natural dispositions as well as the existence of λόγος.
“One can probably never know themselves until they do this on their own ... and on that note:”
Of course, as a woman I have little to say on this particular topic, but the isomers analogy was too thought-provoking for me not to comment on the post (or it hit too close to home because of Chemistry finals a few days ago... people who set exam times before 9am should be imprisoned for life -_-).
If I might be allowed to respectfully scrutinize this part:
"I am referring to the natural behavioral psychology witnessed, the natural patters that emerge based off of biological identity which transcends social constructs. Up until recently, the social constructs of male and female were largely based off of these natural inclinations and dispositions."
Could it be said that lot of past customs were still relying on definitions, just of a more explicit and essentialist kind (as in trying to speedrun self-actualization through societal collectivism rather than individuation)? I think that risks lending itself to a performative existence as well, since the norms are still imposed externally. To that end, I agree wholeheartedly that the only way out of the house of mirrors is to find (if not make) oneself. To paraphrase one of my past articles, light can travel in a vacuum, and even if there is nothing/no one else, one can still become someone with inner light, independent of an observer.
One can probably never know themselves until they do this on their own ... and on that note:
https://youtu.be/zsCD5XCu6CM?feature=shared
BTW- hope you did well on your exams!
“Of course, as a woman I have little to say on this particular topic, but the isomers analogy was too thought-provoking for me not to comment on the post (or it hit too close to home because of Chemistry finals a few days ago... people who set exam times before 9am should be imprisoned for life -_-).”
Thanks for reading as well as your insightful thoughts. This essay initially started out directed at my daughters but after seeing a few articles on the stack I addressed it (predominantly) towards men. This is very applicable to women as well and I could have framed this to be broader. I am glad isomer got your attention. I have explained this concept elsewhere before; it did not occur to me then to use the isomer framing I did today. It seems… fitting. (pun intended)
“If I might be allowed to respectfully scrutinize this part:”
I am referring to the natural behavioral psychology witnessed, the natural patters that emerge based off of biological identity which transcends social constructs. Up until recently, the social constructs of male and female were largely based off of these natural inclinations and dispositions.
““Could it be said that lot of past customs were still relying on definitions, just of a more explicit and essentialist kind (as in trying to speedrun self-actualization through societal collectivism rather than individuation)? I think that risks lending itself to a performative existence as well, since the norms are still imposed externally. To that end, I agree wholeheartedly that the only way out of the house of mirrors is to find (if not make) oneself. To paraphrase one of my past articles, light can travel in a vacuum, and even if there is nothing/no one else, one can still become someone with inner light, independent of an observer.””
I do not disagree. This requires some nuance. Truly, I explained this concept at much greater length in another essay where I added the details I am about to briefly do. I should have added more to this paragraph, but I am attempting to modify how I write. I have to force myself into brevity and it seems I cut myself short here. What I am attempting to convey here regarding gender roles is that in the past the social constructs more or less were templated off of, or were in closer relation to, the natural biological constructs. Which as you said could some cultures be trying to speedrun self-actualization – absolutely. (Some Chesterton’s fences are built with this concept in mind) The problem with this is many- one of which I touched on in the Schrodinger’s God essay. Essentially, self-actualization must be chosen, not compelled. (This could be an enormous conversation) With that said, naturally to some extent, there will be a measure of performance even in the more natural configurations especially if the actions are compelled and not chosen. However, as a general rule, It seems to me, the closer the social construct (which is mediated by external forces) is to our biological one, the easier it is for an individual to actualize. The modern world- and not just because of the transhuman movement- has developed constructs that demonize the natural, which can hinder self-actualization.
The difference regarding definitions has to do with our technical and symbolic relationship to language, which has demonstrably changed over the past century. (longer but technology among other things has accelerated this) Previously, the definition was developed as an observation of truth, now it is molded to shape it. This is a profound difference.
Your example about light traveling in a vacuum is clever. Yes, Truth just is despite our acceptance or awareness of it. To take a stab at the cat- it is either dead or alive- regardless if I look. Same can be said of our natural dispositions as well as the existence of λόγος.
“One can probably never know themselves until they do this on their own ... and on that note:”
Awesome!