The Aristasia Forums Archive Forum Index The Aristasia Forums Archive
See current activity at www.aristasia-central.com/heartbook
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Thoughts on Thought, Femininity, Rationalism, and things

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Aristasia Forums Archive Forum Index -> The Blue Camellia Club
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Miss Elise



Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 37
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:44 pm    Post subject: Thoughts on Thought, Femininity, Rationalism, and things Reply with quote

I am of a rather philosophical bent, and I often spend my time thinking deeply about matters, that despite their lack of practical use, seem to have deeper meaning. As well I was raised in a rather unusual household, I have a mother and a father (in the usual tellurian fashion) but my father was a man who's temperament was undeniably very blonde, my mother on the other hand was quite firmly brunette. In fact for several generations the women in my family have been given to marrying impractical geniuses.

My father could barely sort out his own dinner, but was a man of very deep wisdom who was also one of the emotionally warmest, most deeply caring and nurturing people I have ever met. He tended to the emotional and intellectual aspects of raising me and my siblings, while my mother tended to the practical (food, clothing, etc) and my father on every day matters listened to her, though it was clearly understood that on larger issues his word was final.

My father was not a particularly masculine fellow, and if you consider for a bit, most famous Tellurian male thinkers have been branded "effeminate" in one way or another, the stereotype of the "nerd" is often associated with several quite feminine traits. Whereas lady scientists have never been particularly masculine.

In a certain way, I think my parent's relationship mirrors the Aristasian model of blonde and brunette. The blonde admires the brunette's capacity to keep the everyday world in order, to make use of ideas, etc, while the brunette admires the blonde's capacity for more universal thought. In a way the relationship is almost symbiotic, the blonde thinks of things and the brunette thinks up a use for them.

To me blondes strongly recall the idea of the absent minded academic, the dreamy other worldly mystic, and the impractical artist. The brunette is their protector and facilitator. This is not to say brunette's lack intelligence, as they quite obviously don't, it just seems to me that blonde intelligence and brunette intelligence are quite different, a brunette's lies in the arena of common sense (a misnomer if there ever was one) and practical intelligence and a blonde's is a more theoretical and conceptual. I suspect if a scientess were to study the brains of blondes and brunettes they would find significant cognitive differences, ones which would likely compliment one another very nicely.


On another note, it pains me to see people think science is such a cold, heartless business that takes the magic out of existence. For some reason many people get "how" and "why" confused. As well many people seem to think that once the mystery of "how" is explained something becomes meaningless or useless.

For example the idea that "love is just chemicals reacting in your brain" well the feeling of love is created by chemicals in the brain reacting but that doesn't mean love isn't real, just as the fact that we understand the mechanism of an internal combustion engine does not mean that a car doesn't "really" move. Some would also argue that love is a mechanism for bonding couples and society, but that too does not prove that love is not a deep meaningful thing. Perhaps the problem is people do not think to ask why again, because it seems, if one steps back for a moment that what is good is good for us. Morality, for example, is useful in that it prevents us from killing one another or stealing things which means that society can function, this does not mean it is a purely pragmatic concept based entirely upon the need to survive.

I suppose what I'm saying is,it's actually quite irrational to claim that science takes the wonder and magic out of things. In fact in early days (before people forgot) science and magic were quite the same thing, and what in modern Telluria is called "magic" is often simply discarded scientific theory. In early days, the time of Newton and his compatriots, science was seen as a spiritual pursuit, and Newton himself was a deeply religious man who considered his discoveries about the laws of the universe to be great spiritual truths, and thought after enough discoveries he might be able to discover some way to speak directly to the cosmos itself, in later times people became discouraged because they had not yet discovered some single universal truth or been able to speak to the cosmos and discarded the idea that there was any form of significance to the laws that govern the universe.

Personally I think the idea that we could speak something so vast and incomprehensible is foolish, it's far too big, and like an ant contemplating a dinner plate we'll never really understand the entire thing. However that does not mean the glimpses of that universal truth are meaningless.

Back on my theory of "What's good is good for us" perhaps the fact that morality and love are practical means something about the intrinsic order of the universe. I suppose what I'm getting at is, perhaps they are not good because they're practical, but in some strange way practical because they're good. Just as Newton and Einstein and many Greek thinkers saw good and harmony in the math of the universe, I see rational thought, and scientific truth to be good and harmonious.

Our animal drives are not our purpose so much as our preservation, they exist and they too are good, but they are not the whole picture I think.

I suppose I'm rambling a bit, but I hope someone understands what I'm getting at.

As well it has been proved that intelligence and neonatal qualities go hand in hand, which makes me again think of the deep thinking blonde, as well women are more neonatal than men, again suggesting the link between deep universal thought and femininity.

Also it may interest the ladies of Aristasia to know that game theory supports cooperation. There was an experiment done based upon the prisoners dilemma, where there were three groups of little characters, one that was always cooperative, one that always cheated, and one that cooperated when cooperated with, and cheated when cheated with. At the end of a set round the computer would tally each team's score and remove a set number of the ones with the lowest scores, for the first few turns the cheaters dominated, but then they started getting paired more often with one another and it proved to be their downfall, as soon enough the sometimes cooperate, and the always cooperate teams had decimated the others and cooperation and good triumphed.

Again as stated before, what's good is good for us, not what's good for us is good.
_________________
Memente Via


Last edited by Miss Elise on Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lady Aquila



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Novaria

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a lot of interesting points you raise. I think there is a good deal of truth in what you say about blonde and brunette thought. Of course there are brunette philosophers and blonde organisers, but you have a good point about the basic way our brains are wired. The sexes are indeed complementary, though to get a full picture of the complementarity of the Aristasian social body it is important to consider the Estates as well.

The scientific question raises a very deep issue - and one that is fundamental to the difference between the "modern" (post-mediaeval) mentality in Telluria and Aristasia respectively. Aristasia, essentially, has a non-revolutionary science, which incorporates technical and material understanding into a traditional, symbolic picture of the universe rather than jettisoning the latter.

There is so much to say about this that I think I had best give a brief reading list. I'll do that in a moment.

To say that love is "caused by chemicals in the brain" is like saying that the works of Sappho were "caused by finger-movements over papyrus", or that a great painting is just so much colored oil and canvas. It confuses the medium or immediate mechanism with the true cause or underlying intelligence.

For a deeper understanding of the Aristasian approach to science and critique of Tellurian "scientism" may I recommend:

The first chapter of The Feminine Universe

And the Encyclopaedia Aristasiana articles on:

Rationalism

Science
_________________
My sword guards the Motherland and all who love her
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Miss Elise



Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 37
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well of course, the point I was making about love and other things of that nature is quite in line with your statement. I was saying that the mechanical process may be the "how" but it is not the "why" and the why is what's important.


As for blonde and brunette, of course I was not speaking in absolutes. To make broad based generalizations is nearly always a downfall, I was speaking more of tendencies rather than set in stone "rules".

It may also interest Aristasians to know that a famous charlatan spiritualist once said that scientists are often the easiest to deceive as they aren't looking for deception. A fact which I found charming, the idea of giving all ideas, all people the benefit of the doubt, of being naturally inclined to trust, is so... charming.

I have known many scientists and science minded people, and far from the nihilists they're so often portrayed as, they have been people utterly in touch with the beauty and meaning of our universe. I think somehow far from being two subjects disconnected... the meaning is somehow inherent to the math, the rules that govern things.

The laws that order the universe seem to me to be a part of the sacred symbolic order of Aristasia. I've always been one who could not bear the thought of espousing the idea that scientific fact was wrong, however I've never been able to make myself comfortable with the philosophical conclusions many seem to draw from these facts, as they often seemed... frankly irrational.

Where so many seemed to see bleakness and meaninglessness, I always saw confirmation of the light and beauty inherent in all things.

As well so many people of a bongo bent seem to think that actions are meaningless, as everything may be forgotten eventually. They forget, however, that because of these exquisitely sensible laws of the universe, every moment must logically lead to the next, and in a strange way, even when things go too far back for mortals or human consciousness to properly logically retrace, the present, the current moment is a log of everything that has happened in the universe before. Which seems to me to be a particularly nice metaphor for dea as a part of all things.

Of course, I am not saying that the makeup of the physical universe must match the metaphysical, however, it seems to me that many overlook some of the particularly lovely symbols of order and divinity, and greater purpose in the universe, because despite what so many will say there are many beautiful symbols and metaphors that do exist.

The only thing I must wonder about in that very lovely article (Image of the Cosmos) is the idea that the beauty and order of all things cannot be seen even in the limited scope of our five senses. I agree with the idea that it would be very wrong to assume meaninglessness based on our limited knowledge, and limited senses, however, that even in our limited perception I think there is a view of the order and beauty of the universe, a small limited piece of the vastness of that order and beauty, but one all the more pleasurable because it is an example of it that exists close to home. Though perhaps (I may be wrong) what the authoress is arguing is not that there is no sign of the order and beauty of everything in our limited scope of knowledge, but that to assume there is nothing more is incorrect?

We may see a very odd selection of things, but I think even so I think we see the influence of the divine order on all those things.
_________________
Memente Via


Last edited by Miss Elise on Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lady Aquila



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Novaria

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honored Miss Elise, I do hope I was clear that I was writing to complement rather than contest what you said. I was in agreement with nearly all of it.

I think you will find Aristasian view of the world very satisfying. We do not contest, in general, the findings of science - neither do we regard science as a Revealed Wisdom (as no intelligent scientist does either - though a few superstitious lay people may). We do understand material knowledge as one branch of knowledge fitting into a much bigger picture of the universe, and that, I think is what is missing from the modern Tellurian view which can make "science" seem inimical to magic and wonder.

In some ways the Aristasian view is more "scientific" than, say some modern Christianity, because while Christianity tends to see "religion" as something separate from and either superior to, or in some cases suffering a sort of inferiority complex in relation to, science; Aristasia sees no break between the two. The highest principles of physics are metaphysical.

The order of the universe is ultimately thamŽ, the Golden Order. The forms of things are what they are not by some accidental throwing-together of molecules but because they conform to the Celestial Archetypes.

"It is love that holds the stars within their courses"
_________________
My sword guards the Motherland and all who love her
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Miss Elise



Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 37
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lady Aquila wrote:
Honored Miss Elise, I do hope I was clear that I was writing to complement rather than contest what you said. I was in agreement with nearly all of it.

I think you will find Aristasian view of the world very satisfying. We do not contest, in general, the findings of science - neither do we regard science as a Revealed Wisdom (as no intelligent scientist does either - though a few superstitious lay people may). We do understand material knowledge as one branch of knowledge fitting into a much bigger picture of the universe, and that, I think is what is missing from the modern Tellurian view which can make "science" seem inimical to magic and wonder.

In some ways the Aristasian view is more "scientific" than, say some modern Christianity, because while Christianity tends to see "religion" as something separate from and either superior to, or in some cases suffering a sort of inferiority complex in relation to, science; Aristasia sees no break between the two. The highest principles of physics are metaphysical.

The order of the universe is ultimately thamŽ, the Golden Order. The forms of things are what they are not by some accidental throwing-together of molecules but because they conform to the Celestial Archetypes.

"It is love that holds the stars within their courses"



Oh good, I wasn't under the impression you were contesting me, I was however fearful you might have gotten the impression I was challenging ideals/ideas that are intrinsic to an Aristasian world view (something I should never wish to do)

It is always bad to get science confused with philosophy and spirituality, though of course in some ways they do mirror and compliment each other. I dislike the idea that science "competes" with a view that accepts wonder and meaning, and as stated Aristasia seems an exquisite place because it does not need to twist scientific fact to make its philosophic/spiritual point, in fact Aristasian spirituality and science seem to be quite harmonious without the two getting muddled.
_________________
Memente Via
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Miss Elise



Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 37
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I'm probably posting much too much, but I keep on thinking about things. One thing that I don't think has been brought up is the idea of individuality vs. individualism.

It seems to me that many people in Telluria might think Aristasia is a terribly homogenous place where everybody runs about like ants, and is precisely the same. After all we are anti-individualist, however, I must disagree with that point.

In a certain way I would suggest that a collectivist society is one more likely to produce individuality, and to tolerate the eccentric. Yes, we all have duties, yes, these roles take up a large portion of identity, however it is just this that makes Aristasia such a comfortable place for the unusual. The business of "fitting in" is taken care of, it is understood that differences in taste, in appearance, in all such things does not deny sisterhood. We all have common goals, and a shared being, and so the unusual miss is much more likely to be able to find friends, and feel the warmth and comfort of community.

In an individualist world the need homogeneity is much stronger, as one cannot be a part of the group unless one is "like' the group. This also explains the lack of need for the sort of rebellion seen in Telluria. The need to "shock" comes from the natural personality being suppressed to please others, and so Tellurians over do it a bit when they feel the need to be true to themselves, to break with the group that insisted upon conformity.

As well individuality is hampered in an individualist society by the fact that everyone must to a certain extent be everything at all times in order to care for our needs, instead of performing their function to the best of their ability, and allowing the others to perform theirs to the best of their ability.

(warning the next bit does have some thoughts of risque matters, but they are not graphic in content at all)
I also had some thought on Aristasia and things that are "Taboo" or "Risque". I should think that Aristasians as a whole are a singularly unrepressed group. I would suspect that although not something one considers appropriate for public conversation (as it is a private matter), it is the act of mating is regarded with a complete lack of shame or embarrassment.

I would suspect that subjects of a risque nature, or in general subjects related to the animal self, are not forbidden, so much as not the sort of thing that's very interesting to talk about. Which is not to say that animal drives are not something that occur, and are not pleasurable when they do. But without prurience or shock value, there's very little that's interesting to say about the matter of mating, besides I suppose a few pointers on proper technique for the maximum enjoyment of both partners.

To an Aristasian, I would think that a "pornographic" film would not be shocking, so much as puzzling, like coming across a film of someone eating their dinner alone, carried through the entire meal with no story, it seems like a bit of a waste of time. I suppose you might be happy to see someone enjoying their dinner for perhaps a minute or so, but after a while it would begin to seem a bit... like a waste of time.

The reason romance stories are popular is because they are just that, stories. A story is entertaining, things happen in a story. There is very little story to mating with one's parter, as nice as it may feel, there's really not very much to say.

Just as the authors of books (at least not ones I've read) ever spend more than perhaps a sentence or two on the quality of the food when characters eat, I suspect in a world where the fascination of the forbidden doesn't exist no one would bother to dedicate much time to it, except in cases of practical application. Cook books exist, and I suspect in Aristasia there are (for married couples) books on various ways that one might have carnal relations, but just as there are no magazines in Telluria devoted to images of people eating, there is simply no demand in Aristasia for images of carnal relations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Aristasia Forums Archive Forum Index -> The Blue Camellia Club All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group