Quote:
|
MM to JimB: The main problem I find with both your [JimB's] and Murray's view is that you both confuse social exaltation with worth…. It reminds me of the attempts on the right not too long ago to have Ronald Reagan's likeness carved into Mt. Rushmore.
|
Margaret—
Undoubtedly the primitive, subconscious emotional and motivational mechanisms play a huge roll in our perceptions and cognitions, and obviously our behavior.
And I’ve generally thought that as we become more aware of that impact, the more likely we’re able to exercise some amount of “objective†thinking (and /or free will) in attempting to discern “reality,†and whether there even is an objective reality, and even some sort of objective morality, that we humans are capable of discerning, and to exercise LeDoux’s downward causation.
However, I’ve found interesting that, in your case, while you actually do seem to have acquired some appreciation for the impact of these primitive neural systems, that that understanding doesn’t seem to have been all that helpful in your own objective thinking when it comes to an admittedly provocative issue like intelligence differences. E.g., your own blatant and, as best I can tell, rather narrow ideology, despite the overwhelming science and evidence that speaks to the reality of intelligence differences, seems to have precluded you from truly accepting and/or acknowledging the reality of such differences; and seems to have resulted in your obsession with what you suppose are the “ideological ends†of the “right†and “conservatives,†which borders on paranoia.
Todd once said that “ideas have consequences,†and I’m inclined to agree. I think that your “ideas,†that we humans lack “free will,†(and therefore, inevitably, whether or not you’re able to acknowledge it, must also lack any kind of meaningful moral responsibility), and that “conservatives†and/or those that don’t share your ideology are somehow “backward,†greatly diminishes any objectivity in how you see things.
However, I remain hopeful that Pinker’s nice hair will have some positive impact on you . . . he seems to be a fairly moral guy, at least for an “atheist.†I don’t suppose that you and I will ever be buds—nevertheless, all the best,
Fred
P.S.—Margaret—I just read your interesting article, “Autogynephilia, a Narrative,†by Margaret McGhee, at
http://www.geocities.com/margimcghee/Articles/AG.htm. I’m a bit irritated with myself—I should have paid more attention to your web site and referenced articles when you first started posting here—I’d have had a better appreciation for where you’re coming from. I’d almost certainly have argued differently, or perhaps not at all. My bad. Maybe I need to up my Ritalin dose.
Anywho, I now actually have some empathy for your POV, why you see things as you do, and perhaps even your contempt of “conservatives,†and/or the “right.†In your article under “Our Gender Narratives Become Our Controlling Beliefs,†you write:
Quote:
|
Trans-women on the female-essence side of this dispute generally hold the strong belief that they are in some sense female. I find myself in this group. We believe that in a better world we would have been born with the bodies of women and would have had lives to match our gender identity. That belief feels so right to us because it closely matches our emotional experience. Many of us also hold a high level belief that self-realization, as long as it doesn't hurt others, is every person’s right. We demand that right for ourselves.
|
I’m inclined to agree with much of what you say in this paragraph—I doubt that we humans have much “choice,†or free will, probably none, when it comes to this “gender identity†thing; and I'd think that it is more or less hardwired, or at the very least a propensity, at a subcortical emotional/motivational level.