It will not be about Anna Maria in particular this lecture...next one it will be. It is impossible to talk about her work and ideas without describing the historical context and I can tell you......I sat with eyes wide open..astonished ..amazed...and now a whole hearted supporter of feminism...^_^ After my lecture I think you will understand.
Let me start with a quote form our latest discussion:
[13:47] herman Bergson: Our next woman philosopher will be Anna Maria van Verschuur
[13:47] Khayyam Kurosawa: a dutch one? never heard of
yes.....never heard of and I can tell you that we have never heard of a legion of women. And just that is historically so exciting, for they were there. And I am absolutely convinced that by their being there they changed history.
But the method is based on an old Roman saying: Guta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo. And that is what the women philsophers did: The drop does not hollow the stone by its force but by constantly falling.
I studied philosophy and even graduated, but in this project I discover what an ignorant I am and how exciting it is to discover that the world of philosophy looks quite different from what I have learnt.
Women philosophers........if you knew what they were up against. The two ancient Greek ladies were mere exceptions, but Anna Maria van Verschuur wasn't an exception at all.
But it makes no sense to tell you what her philosophical ideas were, if you dont know what she was up against. That was huge: Aristotle himself.
I had the innocent idea of: you take the texts a woman philospher produced and discuss it and compare it with what the male philosophers said.
Well, I can tell you it isn't that simple. The history of women philosophers is a history of emancipation of the other half of mankind and a feeling of unbelieve on my side of what I read of male philosophers, how they thought about the woman.
If you ever lost your faith in the idea that there is some kind of development in thinking about life, about humanity, then the study of the women philosophers will give you that faith again.
From our perspective in time, it is really unbelievable what you hear philosophers say about the man - woman relation and the woman, tho I would emphazise that I primarily speak for what we call Western civilization now. I put any other civilization between parantheses here.
Since about 350BC Western civilization was indoctrinated with a number of specific ideas about the woman. The one who put them to paper was Aristotle. He discusses the difference between male and female and women most explicitly in The Generation of Animals .
His purpose was not to make a case for the existential subordination or inferiority of the female to the male—he and his readers took that for granted—but to provide a "scientific" explanation of this assumption. What follows are some short passages from this discussion.
Quote: As we said one can easily identify the causes of birth as the male and the female, the male as the cause of change and development, the female as the supplier of the material.
Quote:The male and the female differ from each other in the possession of an ability and in the lack of an ability. The male is able to concoct, formulate and to ejaculate the sperm which contains the origin of the form [of the being to be born]-I do not mean here the material element out of which it is born resembling its parent but the initiating formative principle whether it acts within itself or within another. The female, on the other hand, is that which receives the seed but is unable to formulate or to ejaculate it.
Quote: Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind. Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master.
And I can go on and on. This was in all men's mind when they wrote their philosophical treatises. That was the content of the man's mind in the days of Anna Maria van Verschuur. But there was more. It is around 1550 to 1600...the rise of science, the independent mind and in that climate the battle was on.
The “Women’s Quarrel”, usually known by its French name, “La Querelle des Femmes”, was a long continuous literary battle between authors who attacked women and those who defended them.
It lasted for three centuries and raged in all European countries and in many languages. The written texts reflect the serious or joculatory discussions that took place in universities, literary circles, church gatherings and in the homes of the upperclasses.
Many of the reasonings marshalled against women, or those in their favour, were theological arguments, arguments drawn from Sacred Scripture or from the Fathers of the Church and you run into the most crazy arguments. Even the argumant that the woman is not a real human being.
Disputatio Nova Contra Mulieres,qua probatur eas homines non esse = New dispute against women, which proves that they are not human. It was published in Leipzig in 1595 without mention of author or printer. Probability it may be ascribed to Valens Acidalius (1567-1595), a scholar and latinist who was born in Germany, but who lived much of his life in Italy.
Just one of his arguments: In 1 Timothy 2 Christ says that many false prophets are to arise who, if it were possible, shall deceive the very elect. Since the passage says “if it were possible”, it can clearly be seen that it is not possible to deceive the elect.
Now no one can doubt that he whom God had created man was the elected vessel for eternal life, nor that Eve on the contrary was not such a vessel and hence in consequence, since she was deceived, is not man made in the image of God.
This argument is powerful and cannot be overturned. Nor can anyone, using these principles, carpingly assert that Adam also was no man because he also sinned. Let the apostle be heard saying that not Adam but Eve was deceived [1 Tim. 2.14].
I think the best counter-argument ever came from Lucretia Marinella (1571 - † 1653). She said that the woman had to be a higher individual, more precious, because she was created from the rib of Adam. And this rib was of far more superior material than the mud Adam was created of by God.
What I want to make clear is that Anna Maria van Verschuur was a brilliant and intelligent woman but she also was in the middle of an intensely debating Europe on the postion of women in society. And believe me it was all over Europe.
And all male philosphers of those days, Spinoza and Rousseau as number one emphasized the inferiority of the woman. And they were the trendsetters in academic circles.
This period in the history of Western mankind was the birth of woman emancipation, a start, but the drive was there and never stoppped. The result of this development is that your daughter goes to university and noone questions that choice, on the contrary even: to university?..wow..cool...what a carreer. I knew she was a bright girl.
Among others it was Anna Maria van Verschuur, a Dutch woman, who paved the way for our daughters. A fight that took at least 300 years. Next class we'll look more closely into how she did it
The Discussion
[13:13] herman Bergson: Let me start with a quote form our latest discussion:
[13:47] herman Bergson: Our next woman philosopher will be Anna Maria van Verschuur
[13:47] Khayyam Kurosawa: a dutch one? never heard of
[13:13] Gemma Cleanslate: schumann
[13:13] herman Bergson: yes.....never heard of and I can tell you that we have never heard of a legion of women. And just that is historically so exciting, for they were there. And I am absolutely convinced that by their being there they changed history.
[13:13] Gemma Cleanslate: ??
[13:14] Gemma Cleanslate: the name for sure
[13:14] arabella Ella: history was written by males for males wasnt it ...
[13:14] herman Bergson: Verschuur
[13:14] Gemma Cleanslate: why cant we find her
[13:14] herman Bergson: But the method is based on an old Roman saying: Guta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo. And that is what the women philsophers did: The drop does not hollow the stone by its force but by constantly falling.
[13:15] AristotleVon Doobie: amen
[13:15] arabella Ella: or create a stalagmite either
[13:15] herman Bergson: I studied philosophy and even graduated, but in this project I discover what an ignorant I am and how exciting it is to discover that the world of philosophy looks quite different from what I have learnt.
[13:15] herman Bergson: ::silence::
[13:15] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:16] herman Bergson: Women philosophers........if you knew what they were up against. The two ancient Greek ladies were mere exceptions, but Anna Maria van Verschuur wasn't an exception at all.
[13:16] Alarice Beaumont: :-)
[13:16] herman Bergson: But it makes no sense to tell you what her philosophical ideas were, if you dont know what she was up against. That was huge: Aristotle himself.
[13:16] herman Bergson: I had the innocent idea of: you take the texts a woman philospher produced and discuss it and compare it with what the male philosophers said.
[13:17] herman Bergson: Well, I can tell you it isn't that simple. The history of women philosophers is a history of emancipation of the other half of mankind and a feeling of unbelieve on my side of what I read of male philosophers, how they thought about the woman.
[13:17] herman Bergson: If you ever lost your faith in the idea that there is some kind of development in thinking about life, about humanity, then the study of the women philosophers will give you that faith again.
[13:18] herman Bergson: From our perspective in time, it is really unbelievable what you hear philosophers say about the man - woman relation and the woman, tho I would emphazise that I primarily speak for what we call Western civilization now. I put any other civilization between parantheses here.
[13:18] herman Bergson: Since about 350BC Western civilization was indoctrinated with a number of specific ideas about the woman. The one who put them to paper was Aristotle. He discusses the difference between male and female and women most explicitly in The Generation of Animals .
[13:19] herman Bergson: His purpose was not to make a case for the existential subordination or inferiority of the female to the male—he and his readers took that for granted—but to provide a "scientific" explanation of this assumption. What follows are some short passages from this discussion.
[13:19] herman Bergson: Quote: As we said one can easily identify the causes of birth as the male and the female, the male as the cause of change and development, the female as the supplier of the material.
[13:20] herman Bergson: Quote:The male and the female differ from each other in the possession of an ability and in the lack of an ability. The male is able to concoct, formulate and to ejaculate the sperm which contains the origin of the form [of the being to be born]-I do not mean here the material element out of which it is born resembling its parent but the initiating formative principle whether it acts within itself or within another. The female, on the other hand, is that which receives the seed but is unable to formulate or to ejaculate it.
[13:20] herman Bergson: Quote: Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind. Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master.
[13:21] herman Bergson: And I can go on and on. This was in all men's mind when they wrote their philosophical treatises. That was the content of the man's mind in the days of Anna Maria van Verschuur. But there was more. It is around 1550 to 1600...the rise of science, the independent mind and in that climate the battle was on.
[13:22] herman Bergson: The “Women’s Quarrel”, usually known by its French name, “La Querelle des Femmes”, was a long continuous literary battle between authors who attacked women and those who defended them.
[13:22] herman Bergson: It lasted for three centuries and raged in all European countries and in many languages. The written texts reflect the serious or joculatory discussions that took place in universities, literary circles, church gatherings and in the homes of the upperclasses.
[13:23] herman Bergson: Many of the reasonings marshalled against women, or those in their favour, were theological arguments, arguments drawn from Sacred Scripture or from the Fathers of the Church and you run into the most crazy arguments. Even the argumant that the woman is not a real human being.
[13:23] herman Bergson: Disputatio Nova Contra Mulieres,qua probatur eas homines non esse = New dispute against women, which proves that they are not human. It was published in Leipzig in 1595 without mention of author or printer. Probability it may be ascribed to Valens Acidalius (1567-1595), a scholar and latinist who was born in Germany, but who lived much of his life in Italy.
[13:24] herman Bergson: Just one of his arguments: In 1 Timothy 2 Christ says that many false prophets are to arise who, if it were possible, shall deceive the very elect. Since the passage says “if it were possible”, it can clearly be seen that it is not possible to deceive the elect.
[13:24] Alarice Beaumont: Hello Rod
[13:24] herman Bergson: Now no one can doubt that he whom God had created man was the elected vessel for eternal life, nor that Eve on the contrary was not such a vessel and hence in consequence, since she was deceived, is not man made in the image of God.
[13:25] Rodney Handrick: Hi Alarice
[13:25] herman Bergson: This argument is powerful and cannot be overturned. Nor can anyone, using these principles, carpingly assert that Adam also was no man because he also sinned. Let the apostle be heard saying that not Adam but Eve was deceived [1 Tim. 2.14].
[13:26] herman Bergson: I think the best counter-argument ever came from Lucretia Marinella (1571 - † 1653). She said that the woman had to be a higher individual, more precious, because she was created from the rib of Adam. And this rib was of far more superior material than the mud Adam was created of by God.
[13:26] herman Bergson: What I want to make clear is that Anna Maria van Verschuur was a brilliant and intelligent woman but she also was in the middle of an intensely debating Europe on the postion of women in society. And believe me it was all over Europe.
[13:27] herman Bergson: And all male philosphers of those days, Spinoza and Rousseau as number one emphasized the inferiority of the woman. And they were the trendsetters in academic circles.
[13:27] herman Bergson: This period in the history of Western mankind was the birth of woman emancipation, a start, but the drive was there and never stoppped. The result of this development is that your daughter goes to university and noone questions that choice, on the contrary even: to university?..wow..cool...what a carreer. I knew she was a bright girl.
[13:28] herman Bergson: Among others it was Anna Maria van Verschuur, a Dutch woman, who paved the way for our daughters. A fight that took at least 300 years. Next class we'll look more closely into how she did it
[13:28] Nana Zabelin: next class????
[13:28] herman Bergson: Phew.....had do have this of my chest..:-)
[13:29] Samuel Okelly: :)
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: pleas herman!!!!!! is this the person!!!!!!!! From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Anna Maria van Schurman, 1649 by Jan Lievens, in National Gallery , London
Anna Maria van Schurman (November 5, 1607–May 4/May 14, 1678) was a Dutch poet and scholar.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Next class Anna Maria
[13:29] itsme Frederix: well the rib argument is nice, but in the end we all become dirt/dust again
[13:30] Laila Schuman: high rennaisance
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: tsk
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: yes itsme , the stuff of nature
[13:30] herman Bergson: Never the less Itsme..after shopping you will confirm to your wife that she is a rib out of your body
[13:30] herman Bergson: a Dutch expression but maybe understood internatioanlly
[13:30] itsme Frederix: aha I misunderstood the argument THX Herman
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: I will ask one more time!!!!!!!!!
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Anna Maria van Schurman, 1649 by Jan Lievens, in National Gallery , London
Anna Maria van Schurman (November 5, 1607–May 4/May 14, 1678) was a Dutch poet and scholar.
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: I supect that if anything man is a rib of woman
[13:31] herman Bergson: the 1607 Anna maria
[13:31] Rodney Handrick: Interesting Ari
[13:31] herman Bergson: her name is misspelled there
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is Verschuur
[13:31] Marya Blaisdale: It concerns me that these men believed that no man since Adam had ever been deceived ...
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes but one acnnot read unless we use the wrong spelling lol
[13:31] herman Bergson: By the way....the National Gallery...
[13:31] Cailleach Shan: I am looking forward to a time when the gender competative ceases, and we can celebrate difference.
[13:31] Anne Charles: She is the one who ran off with Labadie?
[13:32] Laila Schuman: not just ANY man...the elect...
[13:32] herman Bergson: It is most probable that they have selfportraits of her
[13:32] arabella Ella: i agree Cail ...
[13:32] Mickorod Renard: yes I do too cail
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: seems so anne
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: I love the differenc Cailleach an dod so celebrate :)
[13:32] Rodney Handrick: So do I Cal
[13:32] Mickorod Renard: same as race
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly Mick
[13:32] herman Bergson: in her correspondence with professors she used to add little painting, selfpotraits.
[13:32] Rodney Handrick: I agree Mick
[13:32] Cailleach Shan: :) maybe we are closer to it than I thought.
[13:33] herman Bergson: was very comon in those days
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes at the end she was a Labadist
[13:33] Cailleach Shan: What were the Labadists' beliefs?
[13:33] Anne Charles: And her work stopped
[13:33] arabella Ella: what is a Labadist?
[13:34] Mickorod Renard: yes,,what is one?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Oh..wait!!!!!!!
[13:34] herman Bergson: SHe didnt ran off with Labadie
[13:34] Rodney Handrick: A follower of Jean de Labadie, a religious teacher of the 17th century, who left the Roman Catholic Church and taught a kind of mysticism, and the obligation of community of property among Christians.
[13:34] Anne Charles: They tried to live as the Jeruselemites
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes...but it was not a romantic affair
[13:34] itsme Frederix: Well I do not think of myself as argumenting like you quoted, and I think it demonstrates how (male) rationality puts us (human) on the wrong trail. Besides (most) > epistomological questions and reaserach are founded on moral thoughts, or better lack of (known/granted) moral baecons. <
[13:35] herman Bergson: which means , Itsme???
[13:35] itsme Frederix: that we have to listen to women too and rethink male philosophy
[13:35] herman Bergson: We are discussing the rise of female equality here
[13:36] herman Bergson: ok
[13:36] itsme Frederix: that I was reflecting too, as you said there was no much room for that in studying philosophy
[13:36] herman Bergson: My research of the backgrounds of Verschuur excited me
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: I think men have often listened to women jus have regfused to give them the credit
[13:37] hope63 Shepherd: thanks connie..
[13:37] herman Bergson: I , ignorant soul regarding feminism, never knew that the battle had started in her time
[13:37] CONNIE Eichel: yw :)
[13:37] Rodney Handrick: So you saying that I can no longer view woman as purely a sexual creator...lol
[13:38] itsme Frederix: Yes Rodney in a way the popuation of the world doubled
[13:38] arabella Ella: but prejudice and unjust discrimination are still around
[13:38] herman Bergson: No Rodney...sound terribly obsolete and outdated..now you have to see them as human beings
[13:38] Alarice Beaumont: ^^
[13:38] Ze Novikov: yea for human beings
[13:38] Cailleach Shan: Hi Hope....
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: as they were all along
[13:38] herman Bergson: But seriously.....
[13:39] herman Bergson: I did searches in Google..
[13:39] herman Bergson: just simple....Spinoza on women, Aristotle on women
[13:39] herman Bergson: Thousends of hits!!!!!
[13:39] herman Bergson: Do you realize what that means
[13:39] itsme Frederix: thats the common position Herman
[13:39] Laila Schuman: thought i would get physically ill when i read spinoza on women
[13:40] Mickorod Renard: men never could work women out
[13:40] Laila Schuman: was offered the book for free and did not take it
[13:40] herman Bergson: I can imagine Laila
[13:40] itsme Frederix: Schopenhauer is the best on this item
[13:40] herman Bergson: Schopie is only cabaret
[13:40] Cailleach Shan: @ Mick... I think it's because of a 'them and us' mindset.
[13:41] Laila Schuman: forgive me all... baiee
[13:41] Mickorod Renard: I only got that way recently
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: I think it goes back to the definition of what a man or woman is and what role they play...
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Laila
[13:41] Marya Blaisdale: it seems quite odd to me that any man should 'have' to now think of women and human beings. How men who came up with some valuable insights in their time could be so remarkably simple minded. And I wonder what that says about humans right now. The things people are small minded about right now will no doubt seem preposterous to future generations.
[13:41] herman Bergson: THAT IS MY POINT Marya...
[13:41] Marya Blaisdale: :)
[13:42] arabella Ella: we must not forget that most places women were allowed to vote only less than 100 years ago
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: The problem is a heriditary illness, it is passed on form both Farther and Mother to their sons
[13:42] arabella Ella: women were asked to leave their jobs on getting married
[13:42] Samuel Okelly: please excuse me folsk :) thanks for the lecture herman :)
[13:42] itsme Frederix: I wonder what the outcome of all thatfeminism would be Marya,
[13:42] Rodney Handrick: I think it derives from religious dogma
[13:42] Cailleach Shan: I have a question..... Do today's men feel guilt about the attitudes from the past towards women ?
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: and that ws after a battle royal with jail time for many
[13:42] Samuel Okelly: tc every1 :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: My mouth falls wide open when I read Spinoza on women, or Rousseau, not to speak of Aristotle who dominated Europwean thinking for almost 1500 years
[13:42] arabella Ella: and there was a time when women were considered not to have a soul
[13:42] hope63 Shepherd: i forgot who mentioned egytthe last class.. women's rights..and hatchepsut lived 3400 years ago..and was pharao
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: ever since women were on the decline...
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: I do not feel guilty for someone else, but I surely will make amends adn certainly will not pass thi sillness on to my children
[13:43] herman Bergson: HOLD ON
[13:43] arabella Ella: but there were no female roman emperors
[13:43] herman Bergson: PLZ
[13:43] itsme Frederix: Herman I always thought that was cabaret and just small talk - I bet they did not discuss that in bed
[13:43] Mickorod Renard: its all down to testosterone, now we men are being poluted and loosing it, we can now see women in a diferent light
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: I think it's an argument that stems from the time of creation
[13:43] herman Bergson: 3
[13:44] Cailleach Shan: Hahahahahaha..... love it Herman
[13:44] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:44] Marya Blaisdale: itsme - I think the outcome is that feminism will eventually give way to a drive to equalise opportunities for all humans - women's rights seems to be just one part of a bigger issue
[13:44] herman Bergson: 3
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: ahha finally some control!!!!
[13:44] arabella Ella: LOL
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: HA HA HA HA HA
[13:44] itsme Frederix: Marya hope the outcome will not be woman -> man
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:44] herman Bergson: Cailleach had an interesting question: do we men feel guilt about our history...?
[13:45] herman Bergson: Cailleach...I am sorry..but I plead for NOT GUILTY
[13:45] hope63 Shepherd: what's your history, herman..grin
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: I see a wrong that needs to be righted
[13:45] Cailleach Shan: Great..:)
[13:45] Marya Blaisdale: Itsme - I expect the outcome will be a recognistion that while we have our differences, that this is more indicative of a certain balance as opposed to any issues about superiorty/inferiority.
[13:45] herman Bergson: ask my EX Hope..lol
[13:45] : Mickorod Renard raises hand
[13:45] Rodney Handrick: I think it stems from religious dogma
[13:46] herman Bergson: MICKOROD!!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Needs to go to the bathroom I guess..:-)
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: sorry
[13:46] Cailleach Shan: lol...
[13:46] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:46] herman Bergson: No..but serious now....
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: how can one feel guilt for something they did not do, we mus recognise the problem and inlpiment the solution
[13:47] herman Bergson: three hundred yeas ago Europe really was vibrating of this discussion about women's rights
[13:47] herman Bergson: it then started....and look at us now...
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: surely , seeing men as guilty is seeing men as seperate,,and surely that is the same as men seeing women as seperate
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: it has been evolving for that 300 years
[13:47] hope63 Shepherd: ah.. ari ... you speak for all the germans
[13:48] hope63 Shepherd: - after 45
[13:48] Cailleach Shan: Ah.... so there is no misunderstanding... I do not see men as guilty.
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: my daughter is at the universtiy, and is not out of place there
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: In terms of modern history I think we have to look at the relationships back in Rome
[13:48] hope63 Shepherd: how do you see men cal..._)?
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: my daughter is smarter than most men
[13:48] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:48] herman Bergson: Right Aristotle....that is what I mean...there has been REAL change
[13:49] Cailleach Shan: :) magnificient creations.
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: and she is a lot prettier
[13:49] itsme Frederix: ;)
[13:49] Alarice Beaumont: no Herman.. the smartness has always been there!
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: any woman is prettier in general than a man ari
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: :0 I agree Hope
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:49] herman Bergson: I dont mean change in smartness Alarice..in rights and chances
[13:49] Alarice Beaumont: :-)
[13:50] herman Bergson: And I must say....
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: well... don't you think somehow it's also a fault of the women??? Who is raising the children?!
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: but smart women do have to try harder to climb the barrier
[13:50] herman Bergson: this historical observation has given me more hope for mankand than I had in the past twenty years
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. unfortunaltly it is still that way Mick
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: it is the responsibility of parents to teach both there sons and daughters to respect eah other
[13:51] Cailleach Shan: I agree Herman.... a re-balancing.
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes MIckorod..we stillare not there
[13:51] Mickorod Renard: true
[13:51] arabella Ella: yes Alarice ... who is raising the men to be the way they are? And why are men still not very involved in the upbringing of their children
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes Cailleach
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: ye.. that's what i mean Arabella
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: BUT adolescence changes those lessons for many
[13:51] herman Bergson: not that discussioin plz Arabella
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: too much women want it the way it is
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: I can tell you that my mother did not raise me to be liberated
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I think man and woman have a role to play in the chain of life....you can't have two positives and two negatives together and expect them to work properly...there must be a ying and a yang
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: that was an intelligent revelation
[13:52] Marya Blaisdale: Thousands of years of programming will take some time to deal with - neither male nor female will change overnight - and it always has to start somewhere.
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: that is right Rod
[13:52] arabella Ella: why not Herman is this not what everyone else is discussing?
[13:52] Cailleach Shan: Great description Rodney.
[13:52] herman Bergson: It took us 300 years to get this far Marya
[13:53] Mickorod Renard: my mother was very happy in her role in life,,and she was not liberated in the way we speak of it
[13:53] Alarice Beaumont: well.. Rod.. who defines the roles?!
[13:53] arabella Ella decides to remain silent ...
[13:53] herman Bergson: I dont agree with Rodneys discription
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: we are not the same, thankfully, and it takes both of us, obviously, to survive
[13:53] hope63 Shepherd: dumb is happiness?_)
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: i do not eithr
[13:53] herman Bergson: Doesnt belong in a philosphy class
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: I think we all know in the recesses of our minds...however people filter this
[13:54] herman Bergson: No Rodney I dont agree with your statement..
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: in the matter of the mind ? No
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: the work roles men and women have are not negative if they are interchangable
[13:54] herman Bergson: It is based on some kind of positive - negative concept
[[13:55] hope63 Shepherd: did your ironing today ari?
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: I was not raised , unfortuantely, Hope to do thta
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: but my son was
[13:55] Cailleach Shan: Well, that doesn't necessarily have to mean 'good or bad' it can simply be like a battery. Both positive and negative charges are required to produce the energy.
[13:55] herman Bergson smiles
[13:55] herman Bergson: OK....
[13:56] herman Bergson: I thank you for this discussion
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: well.. everyone should live up to his /her ability ...
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: from some of the comments i have heard in the last three classes i doubt that things have really changed in some minds in the modernn world
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: hmmm-- lots of energy is produced _)
[13:56] Anne Charles: Crashed, sorry
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: cal
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: thank you Herman, surely a 'wasps nest'
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: jokes and unuendoes still exist
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: men and women can complete each other
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: to prove this
[13:56] Mickorod Renard: just love everyone,,then it will all sort its self out
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: you must nont laugh at the joke
[13:56] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotlte and time for me to get out of it LOL
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: jokes
[13:56] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..lol
[13:57] Mickorod Renard: bye everyone,,gotta go
[13:58] hope63 Shepherd: take care you two:)
[13:58] Alarice Beaumont: bye Mick
[13:58] Mickorod Renard: thank you hermen
|
|
