The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm just thinking out loud here, so bear with me.
The latest thing to cross my mind is that what really sets us apart from the "animal kingdom" is our massively inflated sense of curiosity. Which is to say, we often feel the need to ask a lot of questions where other creatures would just accept life on face value.
Now, essentially, this is never seen to be a bad thing. Curiosity has driven our social and technological advance over the last few millennia. Without curiosity, we'd still be living in caves wearing wolfskin pelts and hitting women over the head with clubs when we wanted some action.
This sense of curiosity has caused us to ask all of the important questions. All the what-ifs, whys, whats and wherefores that have , over time, become an enormous wealth of knowledge beyond the capacity for any one human being to learn it all in a single lifetime. We know how most things work, why they work that way, and how they came to be about.
But, as they say, curiosity did indeed kill the cat, and in modern times, where we seem to know pretty much all there is that's worth knowing, our sense of curiosity could well be more of a hindrance than any genuine help. So let's look at a few areas where questions have been asked where we were probably better off living in ignorance:
Now, I don't want to get into a religious debate, but any unbelieving cynic will tell you that when people started to ask "What is the meaning of life", it was widely regarded by those who were expected to provide the answers that there were in fact no answers forthcoming. And so, after many a deliberation on the subject, religions were born throughout the world. Each region of the world coming to their own conclusions as to the actual structure of the religion, and what deities might be involved. Many shrewd religious conceptors were wise to take the opportunity to use religion to enforce certain social policies, now widely known as "morals". But essentially, what resulted was a hundred different well fabricated answers to the same question, and thousands of Gods being "around", watching your every move, and while you might get away with being bad while you were alive, "God help you" when you reached the afterlife.
Of course, curiosity is not so easily overcome, and people have been picking holes in religion ever since, to the point where any given religion is written in such a way that it is interpretable in any of a thousand different ways, so that the people who must give the answers to the big questions about life and existence have a wealth of almost irrefutable material to reference.
Given the number of people that have died fighting over which religion is the correct one, and given also that, to many, religion is still very difficult to stomach, perhaps it would have been better for mankind to have never thought to ask such questions.
On a completely different subject, the modern nauseating satire that is "the dating game" is another subject that suffers from curiosity. Historically, morals were flexible enough that infidelity wasn't so great a deal, unless of course, you were a noble, or someone otherwise expected to uphold certain standards. Nowadays, however, everyone seems to expect everyone else to uphold an unrealistically high level of moral dignity, a pedigree the vast majority of people quite pointedly fail to sustain.
Again, surprisingly (for some), curiosity is the culprit here. Of course, one could also blame the women's rights movements of the early 20th century, which has led to women having the heightened level of self-importance that they now enjoy in modern society, but that would be sexist, discriminative, and slightly unfair. Now, the average FHM reader is the typical victim of women's heightened influence on the dating game of today. What do these men buy the magazine for? To read the witty articles? To look up what shade jeans they should be wearing this coming spring? No, they buy it because it flaunts pictures of scantily clad women. And not just any women, but beautiful women.
Now here's the kick. Women themselves are just as sexually driven as men, if not more so, yet they have succeeded in projecting an image of general sexual nonchalance which deludes men into the foolish notion that sex with women is a gift from them to you, and modern media adds the element of "sex with a beautifully crafted goddess is better than sex with anyone else". Needless to say, this projection is terrifically and fatally false. However, the result of which is that men are generally always second guessing their relationships. Not really wanting to settle down because of the implied possibility that it could be better if only they could get with a better looking woman.
This leads to the curiosity of wanting to sleep with other women, which ultimately itself leads to the levels of infidelity we see in almost everyone alive. It could be different with her. So why not try it? Notions such as compatibility, common interests or even favourite colours are pretty much ignored in favour of the better body, better relationship "Sex with Gods" form of dating.
Needless to say, if people were more inclined to see past the skin deep projection, and look at the person within, people would be far more likely to find a partner that suited them, and even *gasp* settle down for life, rather than requiring an increasing number of divorce lawyers and jail sentences for domestic violence.
There are a number of problems with human curiosity. One being that we simply ask too many questions. Another being that while we are curious for answers, we far too often swallow the first one we're given as gospel, and then stubbornly refuse to accept anything that might differ from it.
Of course, we aren't helped by the ever-present "media", who continuously attempt to sate the insatiable by feeding their interpretation of world events to a vegetative and easilly fooled public. They generally end up asking more questions than they ever do answer, and only lead the public to ask yet more questions. A self-propagating spiral of curiosity driven blissful ignorance.
To me, the obvious way out of the proliferating circle of unnecessary questions and insufficient answers is to simply stop requiring an answer to everything. Perhaps then, by letting the finer points of the body politic and other things beyond your sphere of responsibility and influence pass over your head, you can spend more of your time trying to add value to your existence, and less time worrying about things you don't need to know, and that are beyond your ability to effect anyway.
Just a thought. Back to your drinks.
The latest thing to cross my mind is that what really sets us apart from the "animal kingdom" is our massively inflated sense of curiosity. Which is to say, we often feel the need to ask a lot of questions where other creatures would just accept life on face value.
Now, essentially, this is never seen to be a bad thing. Curiosity has driven our social and technological advance over the last few millennia. Without curiosity, we'd still be living in caves wearing wolfskin pelts and hitting women over the head with clubs when we wanted some action.
This sense of curiosity has caused us to ask all of the important questions. All the what-ifs, whys, whats and wherefores that have , over time, become an enormous wealth of knowledge beyond the capacity for any one human being to learn it all in a single lifetime. We know how most things work, why they work that way, and how they came to be about.
But, as they say, curiosity did indeed kill the cat, and in modern times, where we seem to know pretty much all there is that's worth knowing, our sense of curiosity could well be more of a hindrance than any genuine help. So let's look at a few areas where questions have been asked where we were probably better off living in ignorance:
Now, I don't want to get into a religious debate, but any unbelieving cynic will tell you that when people started to ask "What is the meaning of life", it was widely regarded by those who were expected to provide the answers that there were in fact no answers forthcoming. And so, after many a deliberation on the subject, religions were born throughout the world. Each region of the world coming to their own conclusions as to the actual structure of the religion, and what deities might be involved. Many shrewd religious conceptors were wise to take the opportunity to use religion to enforce certain social policies, now widely known as "morals". But essentially, what resulted was a hundred different well fabricated answers to the same question, and thousands of Gods being "around", watching your every move, and while you might get away with being bad while you were alive, "God help you" when you reached the afterlife.
Of course, curiosity is not so easily overcome, and people have been picking holes in religion ever since, to the point where any given religion is written in such a way that it is interpretable in any of a thousand different ways, so that the people who must give the answers to the big questions about life and existence have a wealth of almost irrefutable material to reference.
Given the number of people that have died fighting over which religion is the correct one, and given also that, to many, religion is still very difficult to stomach, perhaps it would have been better for mankind to have never thought to ask such questions.
On a completely different subject, the modern nauseating satire that is "the dating game" is another subject that suffers from curiosity. Historically, morals were flexible enough that infidelity wasn't so great a deal, unless of course, you were a noble, or someone otherwise expected to uphold certain standards. Nowadays, however, everyone seems to expect everyone else to uphold an unrealistically high level of moral dignity, a pedigree the vast majority of people quite pointedly fail to sustain.
Again, surprisingly (for some), curiosity is the culprit here. Of course, one could also blame the women's rights movements of the early 20th century, which has led to women having the heightened level of self-importance that they now enjoy in modern society, but that would be sexist, discriminative, and slightly unfair. Now, the average FHM reader is the typical victim of women's heightened influence on the dating game of today. What do these men buy the magazine for? To read the witty articles? To look up what shade jeans they should be wearing this coming spring? No, they buy it because it flaunts pictures of scantily clad women. And not just any women, but beautiful women.
Now here's the kick. Women themselves are just as sexually driven as men, if not more so, yet they have succeeded in projecting an image of general sexual nonchalance which deludes men into the foolish notion that sex with women is a gift from them to you, and modern media adds the element of "sex with a beautifully crafted goddess is better than sex with anyone else". Needless to say, this projection is terrifically and fatally false. However, the result of which is that men are generally always second guessing their relationships. Not really wanting to settle down because of the implied possibility that it could be better if only they could get with a better looking woman.
This leads to the curiosity of wanting to sleep with other women, which ultimately itself leads to the levels of infidelity we see in almost everyone alive. It could be different with her. So why not try it? Notions such as compatibility, common interests or even favourite colours are pretty much ignored in favour of the better body, better relationship "Sex with Gods" form of dating.
Needless to say, if people were more inclined to see past the skin deep projection, and look at the person within, people would be far more likely to find a partner that suited them, and even *gasp* settle down for life, rather than requiring an increasing number of divorce lawyers and jail sentences for domestic violence.
There are a number of problems with human curiosity. One being that we simply ask too many questions. Another being that while we are curious for answers, we far too often swallow the first one we're given as gospel, and then stubbornly refuse to accept anything that might differ from it.
Of course, we aren't helped by the ever-present "media", who continuously attempt to sate the insatiable by feeding their interpretation of world events to a vegetative and easilly fooled public. They generally end up asking more questions than they ever do answer, and only lead the public to ask yet more questions. A self-propagating spiral of curiosity driven blissful ignorance.
To me, the obvious way out of the proliferating circle of unnecessary questions and insufficient answers is to simply stop requiring an answer to everything. Perhaps then, by letting the finer points of the body politic and other things beyond your sphere of responsibility and influence pass over your head, you can spend more of your time trying to add value to your existence, and less time worrying about things you don't need to know, and that are beyond your ability to effect anyway.
Just a thought. Back to your drinks.
Page:
Rosalind wrote:
> Wow, has she ever existed? I feel seriously lacking.
Indeed. It was actually something that was taught/passed down by a mother. Of course, the men of the time were far more predictable than of now, so I think such women are a bit of a myth now.
> Wow, has she ever existed? I feel seriously lacking.
Indeed. It was actually something that was taught/passed down by a mother. Of course, the men of the time were far more predictable than of now, so I think such women are a bit of a myth now.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> And the medieval woman is one who is a willing housewife for life, and
> always anticipates her partners needs flawlessly without need for
> prompting, which is what many wife beaters are probably looking for.
Okay, enough of dissecting your thought for today it is making my head hurt. Just to get slightly off the topic here - If that is the definition I would love to be a medieval woman in this day and age. With all those gadgets in the house, just whip round with a duster and vac then lo and behold the rest of the day for the games console and the internet. Wouldn't put up with being beaten though.
Unfortuately I'm stuck in the office and I really must get some work done now.
> And the medieval woman is one who is a willing housewife for life, and
> always anticipates her partners needs flawlessly without need for
> prompting, which is what many wife beaters are probably looking for.
Okay, enough of dissecting your thought for today it is making my head hurt. Just to get slightly off the topic here - If that is the definition I would love to be a medieval woman in this day and age. With all those gadgets in the house, just whip round with a duster and vac then lo and behold the rest of the day for the games console and the internet. Wouldn't put up with being beaten though.
Unfortuately I'm stuck in the office and I really must get some work done now.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> And the medieval woman is one who is a willing housewife for life, and
> always anticipates her partners needs flawlessly without need for
> prompting, which is what many wife beaters are probably looking for.
Wow, has she ever existed? I feel seriously lacking.
> And the medieval woman is one who is a willing housewife for life, and
> always anticipates her partners needs flawlessly without need for
> prompting, which is what many wife beaters are probably looking for.
Wow, has she ever existed? I feel seriously lacking.
Ineedsleep wrote:
> Okay, I know it was a while ago but the rest of the paragraph that
> bugged me -
>
> What exactly do you mean by a medieval style woman and when did the
> "new age" woman become fragile?
Firstly, I didn't say new age women are fragile. I made a reference to fragile new age women, which is to say, there is a niche of women, in this new age of women's rights, who are very much what I would call weak.
And the medieval woman is one who is a willing housewife for life, and always anticipates her partners needs flawlessly without need for prompting, which is what many wife beaters are probably looking for.
> Curiosity doesn't lead to wrong conclusions about who we should be
> with. Usually it is bad decisions or people maturing and suddenly
> finding they are not compatible anymore. Plus several other reasons
> but surely not curiosity
Maturing early? Curiosity is what leads you to go out and "find out what life is about", it is therefore the single biggest influence over people coming out of puberty. What is this like? What is that like? I want to go to Australia. I want to have sex. I want to see what happens if I drink too much.
Why do you want to do these things? Because you're curious and have never done them before.
> Okay, I know it was a while ago but the rest of the paragraph that
> bugged me -
>
> What exactly do you mean by a medieval style woman and when did the
> "new age" woman become fragile?
Firstly, I didn't say new age women are fragile. I made a reference to fragile new age women, which is to say, there is a niche of women, in this new age of women's rights, who are very much what I would call weak.
And the medieval woman is one who is a willing housewife for life, and always anticipates her partners needs flawlessly without need for prompting, which is what many wife beaters are probably looking for.
> Curiosity doesn't lead to wrong conclusions about who we should be
> with. Usually it is bad decisions or people maturing and suddenly
> finding they are not compatible anymore. Plus several other reasons
> but surely not curiosity
Maturing early? Curiosity is what leads you to go out and "find out what life is about", it is therefore the single biggest influence over people coming out of puberty. What is this like? What is that like? I want to go to Australia. I want to have sex. I want to see what happens if I drink too much.
Why do you want to do these things? Because you're curious and have never done them before.
Damn - sorry, forgot to delete the top bit. Should just have posted:
Okay, I know it was a while ago but the rest of the paragraph that bugged me -
What exactly do you mean by a medieval style woman and when did the "new
age" woman become fragile?
Curiosity doesn't lead to wrong conclusions about who we should be with.
Usually it is bad decisions or people maturing and suddenly finding they are
not compatible anymore. Plus several other reasons but surely not curiosity
Okay, I know it was a while ago but the rest of the paragraph that bugged me -
What exactly do you mean by a medieval style woman and when did the "new
age" woman become fragile?
Curiosity doesn't lead to wrong conclusions about who we should be with.
Usually it is bad decisions or people maturing and suddenly finding they are
not compatible anymore. Plus several other reasons but surely not curiosity
Men who need a medieval style woman shouldn't seek
> fragile "new age" women etc. It's all rooted to the idea of
> our curiosity leading us to the wrong conclusions about who we should
> be with.
>
I have never been subjected to any domestic violence so really I cannot speak
from experience but I always believed that it was an ongoing thing. My
Grandfather hit my Grandmother, my father hit my mother (or the otherway
around) etc. and so it is okay to do this, this is how things are done. Or my
mother was hit by my father (again or vica versa) so it is okay for me to be a
victim. The cycle of bully and victim is then perpetuated.
I also don't agree with the rest of the paragraph but cannot put my objections
into words.
Okay, I know it was a while ago but the rest of the paragraph that bugged me -
What exactly do you mean by a medieval style woman and when did the "new age" woman become fragile?
Curiosity doesn't lead to wrong conclusions about who we should be with. Usually it is bad decisions or people maturing and suddenly finding they are not compatible anymore. Plus several other reasons but surely not curiosity
> fragile "new age" women etc. It's all rooted to the idea of
> our curiosity leading us to the wrong conclusions about who we should
> be with.
>
I have never been subjected to any domestic violence so really I cannot speak
from experience but I always believed that it was an ongoing thing. My
Grandfather hit my Grandmother, my father hit my mother (or the otherway
around) etc. and so it is okay to do this, this is how things are done. Or my
mother was hit by my father (again or vica versa) so it is okay for me to be a
victim. The cycle of bully and victim is then perpetuated.
I also don't agree with the rest of the paragraph but cannot put my objections
into words.
Okay, I know it was a while ago but the rest of the paragraph that bugged me -
What exactly do you mean by a medieval style woman and when did the "new age" woman become fragile?
Curiosity doesn't lead to wrong conclusions about who we should be with. Usually it is bad decisions or people maturing and suddenly finding they are not compatible anymore. Plus several other reasons but surely not curiosity
Indeed, or the average person behind a shop-counter for that matter.
Unless it's some fat old man, get ready for a scowl the likes of which could well turn a lesser man to stone.
Unless it's some fat old man, get ready for a scowl the likes of which could well turn a lesser man to stone.
Nothing at all, but you'd be hard pressed to explain that to the more rabid members of the anti-porn lobby...
Light wrote:
> The very INSTANT anti-porn crusader stop trying to make anyone buying
> porn feel like a paedophile, I'll be there at the front of the (very
> long) queue.
Thats silly. People who like Porn aren't peodophiles. People who like to have sex with children, think about sex with children or look at people having sex with children are peodophiles.
Wanting sex is natural, so what is wrong with 'normal' Porn?
> The very INSTANT anti-porn crusader stop trying to make anyone buying
> porn feel like a paedophile, I'll be there at the front of the (very
> long) queue.
Thats silly. People who like Porn aren't peodophiles. People who like to have sex with children, think about sex with children or look at people having sex with children are peodophiles.
Wanting sex is natural, so what is wrong with 'normal' Porn?
Rosalind wrote:
>
> I didn't know that. I thought that morals were less flexable in times
> gone past. What with sex before marriage frowned upon and all that.
>
Two words: Roman orgies.
> Um. Very unfair. Hightened-levels of self importance that they
> deserve in modern society. But I'll let this one slip.
Yeah, but not to the point that some (Andrea Dworkin for example) take it; where they don't want equality, merely to supplant men as the dominant sex
>
> I never did understand FHMs popularity. Wanna see naked chicks? buy a
> porn mag. FHM readers are a bit whimpy when you think about it.
The very INSTANT anti-porn crusader stop trying to make anyone buying porn feel like a paedophile, I'll be there at the front of the (very long) queue.
>
> I disagree with this. I guess its not true in all cases but I really
> believe that men crave sex far more often than women do. Women are
> driven by a want for attention rather than sex.
Judging by my hit rate in my single years, I agree entirely with you here!
>
> You could be right about men not wanting to settle down because
> something better might come along. Especially men who think that they
> are attractive to women. Women have a much better chance for a
> faithful man in someone who is less confident.
On the flip side, those men who feel that they are attractive and therefore don't settle down will one day grow old and ugly. At which point they will have a midlife crisis the size of China.
>
> You do seem to be saying that the infedility springs for the male
> wants in realationships. I'm not sure about this. Women can believe
> that they will get more affection from another man, just as much as
> men can beleive that they will have better sex with another woman.
There is however some argument that the biological imperative to spread ones seed as widely as possible to guarantee a continuation of ones genes explains to a large extent the drive of infidelity.
Anyway, sorry for butting in here!
Light
>
> I didn't know that. I thought that morals were less flexable in times
> gone past. What with sex before marriage frowned upon and all that.
>
Two words: Roman orgies.
> Um. Very unfair. Hightened-levels of self importance that they
> deserve in modern society. But I'll let this one slip.
Yeah, but not to the point that some (Andrea Dworkin for example) take it; where they don't want equality, merely to supplant men as the dominant sex
>
> I never did understand FHMs popularity. Wanna see naked chicks? buy a
> porn mag. FHM readers are a bit whimpy when you think about it.
The very INSTANT anti-porn crusader stop trying to make anyone buying porn feel like a paedophile, I'll be there at the front of the (very long) queue.
>
> I disagree with this. I guess its not true in all cases but I really
> believe that men crave sex far more often than women do. Women are
> driven by a want for attention rather than sex.
Judging by my hit rate in my single years, I agree entirely with you here!
>
> You could be right about men not wanting to settle down because
> something better might come along. Especially men who think that they
> are attractive to women. Women have a much better chance for a
> faithful man in someone who is less confident.
On the flip side, those men who feel that they are attractive and therefore don't settle down will one day grow old and ugly. At which point they will have a midlife crisis the size of China.
>
> You do seem to be saying that the infedility springs for the male
> wants in realationships. I'm not sure about this. Women can believe
> that they will get more affection from another man, just as much as
> men can beleive that they will have better sex with another woman.
There is however some argument that the biological imperative to spread ones seed as widely as possible to guarantee a continuation of ones genes explains to a large extent the drive of infidelity.
Anyway, sorry for butting in here!
Light
Page: