Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO vs. World

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-26-2000, 11:16 AM   #21
CYCLE_MONKEY
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 154
Default Smarter than men?

Personally, I thought it was JUST a boring book. Couldn't even finish it, in fact. I really don't believe that women are smarter than men. They seem to have better communication skills (hundreds of thousands of years of *****ing and whining as practice!), but tend to be less adept at the spatial and mathmatical skills. As far as overall intelligence goes, I think, if you were to look at the average IQ of Men vs Women, we would be slightly ahead. This I base on the amount of prominent inventors/visionaries through history being mostly men. If someone could find actual IQ averages, I'd like to see them.
CYCLE_MONKEY is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 10-26-2000, 12:27 PM   #22
SugarMrPoon
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 53
Default Re: Feedback for Zen and the Art

puhhleeeez.
SugarMrPoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2000, 04:10 PM   #23
Haga
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 92
Default Re: Zen and the Art of Total Boredom

I agree here. Not too interesting. No big help in the Mr.-fix-it department and I can do without the Eastern religion trash.
Haga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2000, 01:25 AM   #24
squidwerks
Founding Member
 
squidwerks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1
Default I believe it was a Manx cleverly disguised as a Honda....

squidwerks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2000, 02:22 AM   #25
CYCLE_MONKEY
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 154
Default Re: Zen and the Art of Total Boredom

If that was a joke, I didn't get it. I'm not meaning to be confrontational, but merely took issue with the comment that if you didn't enjoy his boring book, you were somehow inferior to those that DID enjoy it. This is hardly the case. And, I would add, that reading, understanding, and enjoying the technical side (I design mechanical things for a living) of the latest GSZXR-whatever gives me a much better understanding of what it is I'm riding, and it's limitations, that sitting around pondering how the bike is enjoying it's life, and wether it is having a good day or not. For a better read on the physical things in motorcycling around us, and how they relate to us, read any of Kevin Cameron's or Gordon Jenning's technical articles in the bike mags.
CYCLE_MONKEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2000, 03:42 AM   #26
CYCLE_MONKEY
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 154
Default Re: Feedback for Zen and the Art

Didn't read either, but I'm really surprised at those that would label others as stupid, just because they didn't enjoy, what is to many (me included), a boring and pointless book. For reference, I don't need a book to tell me how to achieve that state of individuality. If you need the same book as all the others to show you how to be different, then, aren't you all really the same?
CYCLE_MONKEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2000, 08:06 AM   #27
nagarjuna
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4
Default Re: let''s wander a little...

No, God and the world arenÂ’t necessarily "subjective." Solipsism and atheism aside, they may very well exist in an objective sense. But our experience of everything does seem to be subjective. That is, we know mountains and motorcycles only by the impressions they make on our nervous systems and minds, and our subjective impressions of these objects are not precisely the same as the objects themselves. The image I see when I look at a motorcycle or the feeling I have when I touch it is an image or tactile impression; it is not the actual motorcycle, just as a photo of a motorcycle is not the actual motorcycle. The same would seem to hold for God. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that he exists, we donÂ’t know him directly any more than we know a motorcycle directly. We know God only in terms of how our minds think about him. Our thoughts may be influenced by all kinds of outside sources like scripture and church and culture, but we still end up with our own concept, our own internal idea or representation of God and our own belief that this idea is true.



In the same way, a humanistic philosopher has his own idea of how the world is and that there is no God, and he believes in this idea just as the Christian believes in his idea of God. The ChristianÂ’s idea may be true and the philosopherÂ’s false or vice versa; I donÂ’t want to delve into that issue here. But they both ultimately believe in their own ideas, and these ideas may or may not be true. The tremendous plurality and diversity of religions in this world suggests that no religion and no individual has the complete lowdown on God, that all have imperfect ideas of God. Some ideas may come closer to reflecting GodÂ’s nature than others, but all are probably wrong to some degree and right to some degree. And all, like the humanistic philosopher, center their religious beliefs around their own subjective, human ideas of God. They ultimately rely upon their own human authority to conclude that scripture and church convey truth, just as the humanistic philosopher relies upon his own human authority to conclude that scripture and church donÂ’t convey truth. All are and must be human-centered, whether they realize it or want to be or not.

nagarjuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2000, 10:46 AM   #28
nagarjuna
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4
Default Re: Humanistic philosophy, humanism, humanistic psychology

Yes, we decide whether to believe in a given philosophy or religion. We may base our decision on reason, observation, intuition, or a blending of two or more of the above, but WE decide. WE are the final authority determining what we subjectively believe and don''t believe. Some beliefs may be truer than others. That is, they may come closer to the objective facts than others. If the moon is not made of green cheese,I believe that it isn''t, and it, in fact, isn''t, my belief is true and the person who believes otherwise believes falsely. But each person is the final authority not on the facts themselves but on what he or she believes about the facts. And the nature of some facts, including those concerning the existence and nature of God, are such that it''s difficult if not impossible to prove that one person''s beliefs about those facts are truer than another''s. Acknowedging this helps to keep us humble, more tolerant of different beliefs, and more open-minded. This is what the late philosopher-mystic Alan Watts called the liberating wisdom of insecurity.
nagarjuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2000, 02:39 PM   #29
WebfootRider
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1
Default Re: Zen and the Art of Total Boredom



I agree. I was given the book to read by an acquaintance who took himself way too seriously. He told me that it was such a fantastic book, I had to read it.


Robert Persig also takes himself way too seriously. Maybe that explains why my acquaintance liked it so much. I skimmed through it, reading passages here and there. I would not recommend it to anyone without a broad caveat.


However, different strokes for different folks. To those who thoroughly enjoyed it, I offer my congratulations. Just was not my cup of tea.
WebfootRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2000, 06:23 PM   #30
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Re: Zen and the Art of Total Boredom

Wow! Just the kind of deep, thoughtful analysis I'd expect from Haga! (plus, he had to translate it from Japanese!)
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off