Weininger

[Carmel]

"The thesis the book Sex & Character advocates is little more than self-serving for it justifies Otto's misogynism and antisemitism. The story of Otto weininger is best characterized as "what could have been" for he blew his brains out at age 23. A life intentionally cut short, Otto's claim to fame is how he ended his life for both logical and ethical obligation to the tragic conclusion of his singular magnum opus, Sex & Character -- for he was both a Jew and a homosexual, and possibly a member of the psychologically female."

from:

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/ ... .php?t=271

Anyone care to comment?

Thanks for the link uncledote. Interesting link. I've read some of critiques of Weininger that were really interesting, perhaps I'll post some here soon. :)

[Pam Seeback]

Pam, I don't agree that the feminine is the subjective, and the masculine is the objective. The externalised self (feminine mode of mind) that believes the physical is more real than the mental, is not the subjective. It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality.

Kelly, what you say above conflicts with Weininger's correct observation that

Because the mental creates the physical, the human being must die.

Which means that since the mental creates the physical, both are intertwined and cannot be separated. Ergo, the inseparable, intertwined, subjective-objective human realm.

Nor does cancelling out the feminine mode occur simultaneously with a cancelling-out of the masculine mode. The quote showed that the true, ideal mode (the masculine) was present but the feminine was not.

Kelly, regardless of how one views the feminine mode, it is impossible to separate a duality so that one of the 'twins' can be a free-standing agent. I believe that it was this erroneous philosophical conclusion of so many [male] philosophers that so often manifested eventual madness, insanity and suicide. I believe Weininger was a perfect example of such a conflicted mind. He correctly perceived the spirit realm, the absolute, and realized that to be in conscious union with this realm, the realm of the human being [the mental-physical] must die, but then, tried to blend the two together by giving the absolute human qualities, or should I say, half-human qualities [male only].

Because so many philosophers deny or ignore the law of the inseparable conjoined twins of the opposites that produces material form, there is much confusion and ignorance put out into the world that is called 'truth.' No wonder most philosophers live and die as tortured souls and fail to show the way to be liberated of the suffering that is human thinking, be it called male, female or a combination of both.

[Robert]

I've read some of critiques of Weininger that were really interesting, perhaps I'll post some here soon. :)

Hold on a minute Carmel, you said you don't want to discuss Weininger here (talking to Dan, in this very thread), yet you're happy to post critiques from other sources... ?

Elsewhere, that could be labelled trolling. Or I could be missing the irony.

[Carmel]

What am I allowed and not allowed to post Robert, dear? ;) ...only favourable critiques or opinions of Weininger, I suppose?

[Robert]

What am I allowed and not allowed to post Robert, dear? ;) ...only favourable critiques or opinions of Weininger, I suppose?

You ought not post words like "dear", for a start. wink smiley

Post what you like, my point was about being consistent. If you're willing to post critiques from others (positive or not), then you should accept to take part in discussion of those critiques if someone questions you about them. Seems reasonable enough to me.

[Carmel]

Oh, so "dear" is unacceptable, but the socially and spiritually retarded practice of calling women cows, rocks and dogs is perfectly, fine. hmmm, bizarre set of standards you've got going there, Robert. wink wink ...speaking of being inconsistent. Some consistent standards from the yappy, misogynist dogs around here would be nice.

[Robert]

"L'homme est contradictoire".

[Carmel]

yep, pretty much.

(My six years of French classes finally pays off. heh.)

[Pam Seeback]

Kelly: It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality.

Kelly, I meant to address this thought separately in my previous response to you.

I agree with you that to believe that there is an objective reality is to be delusional. An object [that which is perceived] requires a subject [that which is perceiving].

What is not delusional, and what I believe to be 'ultimate' reality is the reality of pure spirit forms, wherein there is no subject, nor is there an object; there is no image at all of what 'IT' IS. I do believe most on this board call it the 'nondual' state.

It is the pure spirit form reality that exists whether sense awareness [natural law] or intellectual sense awareness [logic interpretation] exists or not. It is the pure spirit form reality of laws, principles and patterns of life that is the invisible link of all that is. It is this ineffable, unspeakable reality that causes your heart to beat and my lungs to inflate and deflate and the planets to spin around the sun. It is without gender, color, shape or size, which means that neither masculine properties or feminine properties have anything to do with its 'I am" consciousness. It is this realm of consciousness, of its law of the opposites, that causes the dualities to appear in man's mind, but of itself, knows nothing of these dualities.

Some call the realm of pure spirit forms 'intelligent design', which is not a concept I like because of its human reference, but for the sake of understanding, I include it in my post.

[David Quinn]

Oh, so "dear" is unacceptable, but the socially and spiritually retarded practice of calling women cows, rocks and dogs is perfectly, fine. hmmm, bizarre set of standards you've got going there, Robert. wink wink ...speaking of being inconsistent. Some consistent standards from the yappy, misogynist dogs around here would be nice.

You're not doing womankind any service with these repetitious one-dimensional, abusive posts. You certainly haven't raised my opinion of women with your behaviour. Indeed, you're only confirming the views put forward by Weininger and co.

You're showing in each post that your thinking has no depth and that you haven't even begun to grasp what the woman issue is all about.

You seriously need to rethink your approach. It's not working and it's incredibly dull.

-

[Carmel]

David:

You're not doing womankind any service with these repetitious one-dimensional, abusive posts. You certainly haven't raised my opinion of women with your behaviour. Indeed, you're only confirming the views put forward by Weininger and co.

Carmel:

Likewise to be sure. Misogyny is a dull and banal as it is common, though certainly a more popular topic around here than exploring the "path to Ultimate Reality and Enlightenment", Per ususal "WOMAN" takes front and center stage. The useless rhetoric, verbal abuse, childish name calling, shameless bias and double standards have done nothing to persuade me into becoming a masculinist, let alone a misogynist and, in fact, has the opposite effect on my opinion as I can clearly see how lowly misogynists are in their attitude and behaviour. It's may simply be that it's not a belief system. It's who they are.

David:

You're showing in each post that your thinking has no depth and that you haven't even begun to grasp what the woman issue is all about.

Carmel:

There is no "WOMAN" issue. It's an imaginary construct. An invisible enemy that exist in the mind of the misogynists. A self created mental prison. An enlightened person knows how to rid their mind of this delusion. Apparently, many people here haven't figured out this basic premise, as of yet.

David:

You seriously need to rethink your approach. It's not working and it's incredibly dull.

Carmel:

There is nothing to approach as you have no argument, merely dull sophistry and shallow, cartoonish generalizations. I'm just insisting on some actual evidence as I don't buy into others' self perpetuating delusions.

[cousinbasil]

You're showing in each post that your thinking has no depth and that you haven't even begun to grasp what the woman issue is all about.

Honestly, David. Are you saying you have the whole "woman issue" all figured out?

[David Quinn]

You're showing in each post that your thinking has no depth and that you haven't even begun to grasp what the woman issue is all about.

Honestly, David. Are you saying you have the whole "woman issue" all figured out?

Yes, more or less. Women aren't as mysterious as they like to make out.

-

[cousinbasil]

You're showing in each post that your thinking has no depth and that you haven't even begun to grasp what the woman issue is all about.

Honestly, David. Are you saying you have the whole "woman issue" all figured out?

Yes, more or less. Women aren't as mysterious as they like to make out.

-

Yes, they do like to make out.

[Carmel]

yeah, so do men...all this anti-woman rhetoric is never going to change that. hahaha!

Mystery solved.

[Bobo]

So woman in men wants to make out. And men like to make out with woman. Isn't the question woman wants to make out with whom?

If this makes sense.

[David Quinn]

David:

You're showing in each post that your thinking has no depth and that you haven't even begun to grasp what the woman issue is all about.

Carmel:

There is no "WOMAN" issue. It's an imaginary construct. An invisible enemy that exist in the mind of the misogynists. A self created mental prison. An enlightened person knows how to rid their mind of this delusion. Apparently, many people here haven't figured out this basic premise, as of yet.

This has to be trolling, surely. No one could be this blind to what is going on around them. Not even a woman.

David:

You seriously need to rethink your approach. It's not working and it's incredibly dull.

Carmel:

There is nothing to approach as you have no argument, merely dull sophistry and shallow, cartoonish generalizations. I'm just insisting on some actual evidence as I don't buy into others' self perpetuating delusions.

It's a waste of time discussing this issue with you, given your entrenched anger and close-mindedness.

It is like a scientist trying to discuss the theory of evolution with a religious fundamentalist. All the fundamentalist sees from the scientist is an attack on humans, the reducing of them to the level of animals. Even when the scientist insists that it has nothing to do with attacking humans, that there is a far greater truth at play, the fundamentalist still refuses to entertain such a notion. Instead he abuses the scientist and states over and over again, "You just hate humans. You're a misanthopist. You just want to put them down all the time".

That is pretty much how you come across on this forum.

Anyway, it's obvious you can't take a hint. You're a bore - a loud one at that - and I want you to leave. If you were a guest in my house and behaved in the same boorish manner as you do here, you would be asked to leave and this is no different.

You've had a good run. You've made your one point over and over, to the point of ad nauseum, but all things come to an end. It's time to move on. I hope that you are decent enough to respect my wishes.

-

[David Quinn]

Women aren't as mysterious as they like to make out.

Yes, they do like to make out.

I'm not sure they even know what it means not to make out ...

-

[Carmel]

Women aren't as mysterious as they like to make out.

Yes, they do like to make out.

I'm not sure they even know what it means not to make out ...

-

yep, there's that simplistic, one dimensional view of women again. All of your misogynistic "arguments" can be reduced to some variation of: Women are stupid, or Women are whores. The whole world, including many men who I've privately and publically discussed this with can see the fundamentalist nature of your views on women here, but you remain oblivious to your "deep resentment" as Bob accurately termed it. ...and you're wrong, I'm not at all angry about it, though I realize you need to believe this because unfortunately, I was right. Misogyny is not merely a belief system for you. It's who you are. That's unfortunate as I can clearly see how this is an impedement to your desire to reach "enlightenment". It simply won't happen given your current psychology. This, I know.

It's your forum, you certainly don't have to alllow dissenting opinion here if you don't want it and it's clear to me that my focus on "masculine", empirical, hard evidence is too much "reality" for you to deal with.

If you want me to leave, so be it.

Ban me.

[Dan Rowden]

This forum has never had an issue with "dissenting" opinion, Carmel. Don't pull that banal shit here. What we have an issue with is emotional rhetoric dressed up as argument. I've not seen an actual argument from you in your last 100 posts. I am frankly a little disappointed by that. Expressing an opinion is fine, but to do it over and over and over and pretend it's equivalent to a substantive point is a tad insane.

We get that you see things differently regarding "Woman". But how, exactly? Telling people they are deluded and that you are right means nothing unless you quantify things.

[David Quinn]

If you want me to leave, so be it.

Good. See you another time, then.

-

[Carmel]

Dan:

Expressing an opinion is fine, but to do it over and over and over and pretend it's equivalent to a substantive point is a tad insane.

Carmel:

That's exactly what you guys do. Dressing up your two main opinions of "Women are stupid" or "Women are whores" with elaborate rationalizations and sophistry doesn't make it any less repetitive and redundant. Calling women dogs, trees and cows is blatantly obnoxious, yet clearly this behaviour doesn't bother you, in the least. From my perspective, this is "insane". Then you claimed it's okay to use these terms to decribe women within a certain "context". No, not in my world, it isn't. It's never appropriate to use those term to describe half the population, though, admittedly, I did use the word "dog" to describe misogynists, but not men, generally. I rather like men, actually.

Dan:

We get that you see things differently regarding "Woman". But how, exactly? Telling people they are deluded and that you are right means nothing unless you quantify things.

Carmel:

Right, quantifiying things(cognitive testing) would yield more accurate results regarding women's state of consciousness than the approach that is relied upon here, which is to qualify the consciousness of women with random, useless speculation and the aforementioned name-calling, rocks, dogs, blah, blah. This type of rhetoric serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory, but if you really believe this is appropriate conduct, then have it, peeps. :)

As for how I see women and men qualitatively, I don't see much difference at all, but that is simply a reflection of my experience. I tend to be attracted toward individuals who have integrated the masc. and fem aspects of their nature, who are somewhat mentally androgynous, so I view people through a different perceptual filter than other's here. That is why the simplistic dichotomy of black/white, masc/fem views regarding "WOMAN" or "MAN" for that matter, simply don't resonate with me.

[Bobo]

It's your forum, you certainly don't have to alllow dissenting opinion here if you don't want it and it's clear to me that my focus on "masculine", empirical, hard evidence is too much "reality" for you to deal with.

What you say is masculine sounds more like feminine to me, mere appeal to authority (in the case of evidence being not so hard) or blind trial and error. It is the masculine drive behinds it that determines what is a hard evidence and where's to look for.

[Carmel]

If you want me to leave, so be it.

Good. See you another time, then.

-

You missed the most important part of my post, which was:

"Ban me". :)

Thanks in advance, sugarmuffin...or would you prefer it if I call you "babycakes".

Well, Robert didn't like when I called him "dear", so I figure calling you a diminutive name would make the job of my banning easier on you, you sweet lil' nugget of sunshine and enlightenment. :)

[Blair]

You are making an awfully undignified exit.