Re: So man is conceptual?
- Re: the claim of "Behind in concepts/intelligence etc.", the following part answers to those who have stunned, felt below status, felt insult to
intelligence etc. Because of space limits in the forum, I reproduce part of it below. More in detail can be studied by clicking on to the "Intelligence" link
"According to Mantegazza, woman has a particularly good eye for the delicate
aspects of things but has no capacity for seeing things on the horizon. A
remote, big object does not much excite her interest. This is explained by the
supposed fact that women as a rule can not see so far as men, and are unable to
distinguish the distant object so well. This is no explanation because it would
be as valid of all short-sighted people. The truth is, that the definition of
distant objects requires more or less reason and inference. Woman does not
reason and infer, and if things miss her intuition, they do not exist for her."
 Mantegazza: Fisiologia del piacere.
It is a world wide school publication. I hope, I have now clarified the matter
to the Forum giving all references. Those in doubt, site is too large and can
go through it by clicking on to the previous and next buttons. I have nothing
more to write and please treat this as my last posting on the subject.
Regards, George Kollamparampil
FROM THE DESK OF MODERATORS:
We may not like to continue further discussions on this topic, since we have already dealt from all angles. Thanks for the contribution, patience and tolerance of all our esteemed members