Because age isn’t a social construct.
-
-
-
Replying to @Aristokles11235
Correct, chromosomes are not a social construct. But looking solely at chromosomes there is the possibility of far more than just two sexes, so when we narrowed down that chromosomal diversity found in the world to just two genders we developed a social construction.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejwatsonjr
I'm resisting the impulse to simply post a sarcastic quip. You seem like an intelligent man. I have trouble believing that you seriously believe what you just tweeted.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Aristokles11235 @ejwatsonjr
Beelzebub certainly doesn't treat 'the sexes' as a social construct, "... distinct and opposite sexes ... that is to say in 'men' and 'women' ..." -pic.twitter.com/ySWiFtble0
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Aristokles11235
I do not read Beelzebub’s Tales as literally as you do.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ejwatsonjr @Aristokles11235
I also would never use BT to support an argument I’m making about politics or society even in areas where I think BT does “support” my beliefs. I think that would be using the text incorrectly. I use it for inner work, not social commentary. This is where Christianity went wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ejwatsonjr @Aristokles11235
The series of books is called "All and Everything" for a reason. Gurdjieff's writings, his aim, and his life do not support a compartmentalized treatment of the Work. I don't know why you think it does.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @couturerob @ejwatsonjr
He thinks it does because to think otherwise wouldn't allow him to comfortably fit in with all of the other people in his environment that think exactly the same way he does about the very latest "burning question of the day".
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
It's a very convenient stance. Gurdjieff writes hundreds of pages of meta-historical/social commentary. You write it all off in favor of a purely 'spiritual' interpretation because, well you just know better. It all gets reduced to something indistinguishable from, say Buddhism.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
"... where Christianity went wrong..." was to pick and choose what to believe rather than striving to be able to do all that was required. Call it theological 'self calming'. Nobody thinks that 1John 3:9 means what it says. Too threatening, too demanding. Therein lies the problem
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.