Kelly's Truth Paper

[sue hindmarsh]

Marsha wrote:

I can't believe you people are driveling on. What saliva.

I think you might want to communicate privately. This thread is dead.

The thread continues to bring up some very interesting points.

The issues raised in these posts are ones that bring out of the wood-work those deeper attachments - which are always in need of a good airing.

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla wrote:

But, Kelly-Suuuuue, in referring to a “one,“ you refer to a causal matrix of which an individual can become conscious of. I do not subscribe to the idea that such a thing is any different to any other thing -- please refer to the current discussion between Matt and I on the Spotlight thread.

Are you saying that an individual, who understands the Infinite, is experiencing the universe in exactly the same way as someone who is ignorant of, and couldn’t care less about it?

* * *

And yes, I have been following the Spotlight thread and I think I understand what you are trying to pin-down there. It is similar to the above – that because everything is caused, everything is what it is and no matter how much anyone tries to place meaning upon it, it always remains the same.

Is that what you're getting at?

“We” also cannot be conscious -- or unconscious -- for what is there to be conscious or unconscious of?

Were you conscious, or unconscious when that thought came to you?

The Universe is part of the construction, is it not?

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

It depends on how important this issue is to you personally.

Yeah, I know...

[bert]

So being born female doesn’t totally exclude you from spirituality, but it does place upon you difficulties that, having been born male, you may not have had to endure.

What makes this whole issue even more interesting, is the fact that, (and I’ve said this many times before) there is no evidence that a biological female ever became a great philosopher, and yet, Kelly (and perhaps others) have made philosophy their particular interest – this surely is an unusual time we live in.

there was Madame Blavatsky.

[DHodges]

there was Madame Blavatsky.

Are you serious?

[sevens]

Can't forget Sofia Kovalevskaya, Hypatia, Maria Curie, Simone de Beauvoir, and Maria Gaetana Agnesi.

Intelligence is all it takes.

(Speaking as one who knows what it feels like to be a woman)

The gall.

(And, a man)

(And, an alien)

(And, a child)

(And, a mother)

(And, a father)

(And, a bastard)

(And, a saint)

(And, a sage)

(And, a fool)

(And, a wise man)

(And, a hypocrite)

Personality is a mask we present to the world.

Our mind is what the world rarely sees.

[kjones]

kjones wrote:

To be free from error. Now, I'll ask again: tell me how you think Reality works, so I can see whether this innocent bliss of yours has any real value. Or was your question your answer?

Yes the answer was in my question.

Then I assume you think Reality is created by desire. Where do you think desire exists? In some other-world, some magical realm transcending anything one can experience, perhaps?

It depends on what you mean by "Reality works". Its function is expansion - meta and micro, inward and outward, ever willing to transcend previous experience and being.

Since this "Reality" has a particular pigeon-holed function, at least not including the opposite of your listed functions, then it cannot be Ultimate Reality, which is all possible realities. Thus, it cannot have any function at all. Understanding this reveals how Reality works.

A koan for you Miss Jones;
Are you one with the nature of two?

This is how I interpret your question:

You = the nature of anything
One = unified, the same as
Nature = what is
Two = dualism

Yes, since dualism has the same fundamental nature as anything else.



Kelly

[kjones]

Kelly: Satan is ignorance and hatred of truth in all its guises, so Satan is a cross-dresser, much flaunted in the masses. Why do you call these ideas religious, or political?

By definition, they are religious -- but I think stipulating the absolute nature of God without all the fluff and fairy floss makes a difference.

Between true religion and false religion?

The reason I call it political is because I see this whole man-woman thing bandied about exactly like a party-line rather than in its philosophical context. The first time I have seen anything resembling a definition of femininity and masculinity from you has been in response to James’ recent post.

I apologise if you have had unnecessary difficulty with my explanations.

Sexual delusion is the most ingrained of any, and like any, is defined clearly in relation to Truth. Femininity is the expression of those who cannot relate to Truth, of those in whom the sexual delusion is deeply, biologically ingrained. It is the instinct to find a mate to complete oneself, believing that perfection is created by coupling. At the core of the feminine mind is this delusional belief that a particular ideal form can solve the psychic puzzle. Essentially the error is wanting to duplicate the self.

Edit: This explains why bert's metaphor of copulation for how sages communicate is false.

And yet the feminine mind can not become conscious of this error, since it cannot recognise itself. It is essentially a mind of aversion, looking outside, beyond, someplace else than of itself. This is why women are fearful, coquettish, defensive, quarrellsome, and as Weininger says, organically false. It takes masculinity to rectify this core attitude.

Masculinity is the expression of those who can relate to Truth, of those whose will to individuality (perfect wholeness) is biologically ingrained. Although this too is instinctive, it has the potential to recognise itself clearly and consciously.



Here are some of the best definitions I've written that explain the philosophical meaning of sexuality, remembering that femininity is nurturance of sexuality's inherent schizophrenia, and masculinity is nurturance of individuality, its opposite:


Wake up, fool! How can the liberator of all beings be unfree?
Enslave itself to a fantasy? Believe liberation is found in bondage
To the love and respect of a bag of flesh and blood?
How can it endure being a murderer,
With the blood of a young philosopher on its hands,
Having chosen love over Truth?
Arise from animal dreams, o young monk, remember your vow, the slavery that liberates,
Be free as the Truth.



True psychological needs are the need to know the absolute truth, and the need to be perfectly truthful. Failure to meet these needs causes the psyche to die from lack of truthfulness. The psyche, or soul, is one's conscience. Over time, by habitually lacking knowledge of the Absolute (the true self), the potential to exist as the Truth vanishes. A dead psyche has the same functionality as any other bodily organism, but no conscience or intellectual presence. It's essentially a non-person, a negative individual. By the age of 30, usually if an individual hasn't become dedicated to uncompromising truthfulness, psychic death occurs quickly, and ego takes over. I know this by looking. Just as a bodily organism's death is marked by its disintegration, and it seems highly unlikely that any re-integration of the same personality and memory will occur, the psyche's death is marked by total lack of integrity. Nothing will change this situation, or at least, it is highly unlikely. Perhaps there are neural pathways that develop in the brain of a wise man, that are so highly sensitive to 'anti-wise' electrochemical brain signals, that they simply can't grow or be established in a fool. It comes down to what obsesses the mind, since this forms the habits that heal or destroy the psyche.

Because sex, socialising, and the other unnecessary and irrational human behaviours, are produced by the ego (the false psyche's needs), I'll now examine ego. I'll also expose why sex is most detrimental of them all. Ego's basic aim is to maintain the false self's illusory boundary between it and everything else, at all costs. The constructed self, set up against the rest of the world as if there is an inherent separation, naturally appears vulnerable. Believing the worst case scenario is the self's death, or loss of its boundary, 99.99% of people spend their entire lives building up security systems to protect it. They really believe there is a three-dimensional, physical world out there, beyond themselves, that encroaches on their territory. This gross delusion leads them on in a fanatical comedy, slaving at ridiculous, endless tasks to keep the false self 'alive'. Insurances to protect a family of selves, of children, lovers, shelters, means to entertain it and avoid becoming conscious, and so forth, are all mechanisms of nature that kill off intelligence and conscience. So much mad obsession obscures the truth that Reality has no inherent form, or things, or nature, divisions, boundaries, or truths.

Ultimate Reality, or the Absolute, can only be everything. There can't be any thing, reality, world, or life beyond Ultimate Reality, because by definition, it includes everything. Whatever is created is Reality. In other words, it can't be grasped or held onto. Ultimately, it cannot be divided up. So chasing self-existence is doomed to failure. It's impossible to meet the true needs of the psyche with egotistical solutions. It just doesn't work. One has to go all the way and abandon the false self, to be psychically healthy. Psychic illness, caused by egotism's fundamental truthlessness, manifests in emotion, at its most obvious. For instance, many people experience frustration when sexual urges are not met, because they perceive their self-construct lacking power. Sexually expressive people, experiencing power and vitality, are perceiving their self-construct as able to dominate the rest of the world. It's all illusion.

Sex is far more detrimental than socialising, working, or even marrying, because it begins to starve the psyche of truth at a crucial time when it's starting to explore nature, truth, existence, reality, and all the most important matters of life. Namely, during puberty. Instead of becoming a philosopher, and venturing the inhuman road to Ultimate Truth, the adolescent falls for the illusion of the self's completion in the form of a pimply, smiling teenager --- and becomes just another human slave. Socialising, working, and marrying are all institutions designed to nurture the human slave's commitment to the life of falsehood. They do a darned good job.

This is the tragic situation for all people, excluding the wise man. And so effective is the system of the egotistical human species, that it is hardly known to exist. There is no conspiracy, or evil hypocritical dictators. It is just cause and effect, from so many humans being produced under sex-stupified conditions. It astonishes me that satisfying one's libido is so heavily promoted as healthy, vital human behaviour --- but I suppose it shouldn't. It is utter foolishness.

I won't bother discussing other grounds for abandoning sex, such as overpopulation. The spiritually inethical nature of sex is reason enough. It is a simple and rational matter to arrange a few careful human-producing farms, and/or use IVF and cloning technologies. Procedures are constantly improving, to resolve concerns about the offspring so produced. It is woman-love that hinders this process. Woman-love protects the existence of women because without women, there is only the empty cold space of solitary thought. What cowards men are! Women are the man's safety blanket made of oblivion and fluff, buffering them from the Truth.

Those who think tantric sex is the path to enlightenment are grossly mistaken. They have no love of truth, and only desire to be free from suffering. They mistake ego's blissful heavens for wisdom, believing peace and an ecstatic, worry-free experience has something to do with Ultimate Truth. Again, Reality cannot be intrinsically divided into separate parts, as if only one thing is Truth, and the rest is not Reality. There is no way to grasp and confine Nature. It's not a particular experience, or favourite person, or idyllic place, or system of beliefs, or certain rational truths. Truth is the emptiness inherent in all things.

One seeking enlightenment has to see that all concepts and truths are manifestations of Reality, the same in nature. The meaning of all words is their emptiness. The Truth has no single fixed form, but is one formless whole appearing as and creating all things. It is one's true nature. Thus, it is useless to try to find it beyond one's mind, or clutch onto any appearance in it, or proclaim that some finite aspect of the Infinite is everything.

In conclusion, the core intellectual blockage to enlightenment is egotism. Sex does more than simply express the belief in the I's inherent being, but goes further and seeks approval for it. Sex expresses the eternal need of the I to be completed, which can never happen. The I is finite, and because it is, cannot attain perfect individuality. Only by abandoning this mental construct, can the psyche be healed, and perceived in its perfect, whole infinite nature --- the nature of Reality.

Do you write entirely for your own benefit, for the benefit of those who currently hold exactly the same definitions as you, or for the benefit of persons who may not yet have even considered your exact definitions?

Since all is already well, those who don't know it benefit from knowing it.

I am not talking about men and women, but about the character that nurtures wisdom. Masculinity is thus defined to lift one's eyes to a further horizon not often viewed these days. It is, and has always been, known by a few unusual males. This type is at one of the two extreme ends of masculine achievement, the one opposite to criminality.

I'd rewrite your synonym lists this way:

Masculinity: adulthood (and yet childhood also), aggression, boldness, compassion, consciousness, courage, cunning, daring, delicacy, determination, firmness, forcefulness, foresight, fortitude, genius, gentleness, hardihood, honor, imagination, individuality, innocence, integrity, intelligence, kindness, mettle, nobility, potency, rationality, resoluteness, self-reliance, simplicity, spirit, sturdiness, tenacity, valor, virility, vision

Femininity: addictiveness, animalism, docility, slavishness, extravagance, flowieness, hysteria, immediacy, indecisiveness, irresponsibility, irrationality, irritability, jealousy, passivity, poor memory, submissiveness, temperamentalism, unconsciousness, unreliability, vagueness, weakness

Given this list characteristics for the two categories, I can tell you of many instances where I have seen women engaged in aggression, cunning, delicacy, determination, innocence, intelligence, kindness and simplicity, for example.

I'm talking of the character that nurtures wisdom, consciously and deliberately. Genitals aren't brains, even though for millions they direct brains.

I have no issue with calling men feminine when it comes clearly detailed with definitions as above. But it is not quite the same to say that most men are feminine with the potential for masculine thought, as opposed to women who do not have that potential (I assume you take the same position on this as Sue) without clearly stipulating your meaning of femininity and masculinity fully at the same time -- as it is to say that most of the Earth’s population is largely unconscious of its unconscious, emotional drives.

That, to me, is how it becomes political in nature.

I've been saying both, referring to the need to understand the nature of Reality. This clearly stipulates that of Earth's population's overwhelming consciousness, those who have the capacity to understand are masculine-minded. Like it or not, there is a personal line to cross, and if you want to call that political, go ahead.

Truth isn't so because of others, because of consensus or disagreement. One's reasoning needs only agree with itself.

Weininger was complete. The entire context of his thoughts is laid out in his book. He far from took the issue lightly and gave it everything he had.

For that, I respect him.

I understand you intend to undertake a journey of similar magnitude. You genuinely have my best wishes in that direction.

What journey are you undertaking?

God willing, you will bring some new insights, rather than merely a repetition of what has already been well detailed.

How Truth is expressed is essentially changeless. I need add nothing.



Kelly

[kjones]

So being born female doesn’t totally exclude you from spirituality, but it does place upon you difficulties that, having been born male, you may not have had to endure.

I think that being born female means one has less capacity to endure difficulties at all.


Kelly

[kjones]

Bottom line for me is, I call myself a woman because I am a biological female. Course, I don't HAVE to, but I'm not sure I understand why it has to be completely redefined since this in itself is bound to cause confusion without your definitions being a. specified, and; b. accepted in context.

Know what I mean?

It can't help cause confusion, in virtually any context, because philosophy is so thin on the ground.

The mass of people never imagine there is an oppositional relationship between sexuality and philosophy (wisdom). For them it doesn't exist, or at most it is a crazy, unthinkable, unwise notion!

It cannot be otherwise. Dealing with this conflict, and shifting a lifetime's worth of badly-placed contextual boundaries, is the individual's responsibility.



Edit: I describe myself masculine-minded and more of a man than most, as part of my everyday conversations and interactions. It's an important act, because (i) my explanations stimulate thought about truthfulness and create an opening for discussing absolute truth, and (ii) silence is a denial of my values, and a poor example.



Kelly

[kjones]

From these definitions, I understand why both women and men on this forum get so very upset by the idea that their chance of becoming a ‘man of wisdom’ is highly unlikely - since they are too feminine. (Well, that can be the only reason they get upset, isn’t it?)

Looking at this line of reasoning further, do you mean to imply that if anyone has ever or ever gets upset their chance of becoming a "man of wisdom" is highly unlikely since this in and of itself means they are too feminine?

The key is whether one must surmount the highly unlikely (or maybe impossible), or will endure its shadow.



Kelly

[kjones]

People have different potentials. A rock has potential too, so it doesn't really mean anything to say that things merely have potential.

It means that it has potential - don't look further.
And everybody can forget that.
what I say is something that I think of;the other does not know what I know yet,therefore one communicates,merely to to "spread himself around".

I assure anyone that this is complete bullshit, because it is through the senses we come closest.

Consequently, everything you express, being thought, spreads around the obvious unreliability of your sense-reliance.



Kelly

[kjones]

How do you determine the potential of those who are not yet sages?

A not-yet sage should keep an open mind about statements they are unsure of, and burn to know if they are accurate, or empirically uncertain. Then they should find out.



Kelly

[Jamesh]

A koan for you Miss Jones;
Are you one with the nature of two?

I rather fancy this koan, particularly in relation to this masculine versus feminine topic. Nice one.

Then I assume you think Reality is created by desire.

Reality is created by illusionary separation – ie consciousness.

I think that being born female means one has less capacity to endure difficulties at all.

Yes because females are less emotional than men (and in this regard less conscious to a degree, a decreasing degree actually, not unconscious though as the 'One-Eyed Dicks' here like to pretend). If they were more emotional the result would be that they would create difficulties for themselves which they could learn from - this learning process is where "mature" masculine perseverance and depth stems from.

[kjones]

But, Kelly-Suuuuue, in referring to a “one,“ you refer to a causal matrix of which an individual can become conscious of. I do not subscribe to the idea that such a thing is any different to any other thing -- please refer to the current discussion between Matt and I on the Spotlight thread.

The One is definitely a different kind of "thing" to any other "thing", such as a finite "thing" or an infinite "thing", because it can be differentiated. It is what is being differentiated at all times.

“We” also cannot be conscious -- or unconscious -- for what is there to be conscious or unconscious of?

A sage is the part of the universe that has total accuracy in his discriminations. He is perfect consciousness of things, what Reality is made of. His discrimination of Reality is just another thing.

The Universe is part of the construction, is it not?

Defining the Universe as everything means the construction (whatever is experienced) is a manifestation of it.



Kelly

[kjones]

What is Truth?
All mystery.
How can the banks of a river meet?

Sounds suspiciously like an ape, the laughing-stock of mankind. Mystery can be spoken of as rigorously as Truth. And the banks of a river are not really separate.


Kelly

[kjones]

You are obsessed of truth-finding.

If only it were a returnable compliment.

[kjones]

Can't forget Sofia Kovalevskaya, Hypatia, Maria Curie, Simone de Beauvoir, and Maria Gaetana Agnesi.

Intelligence is all it takes.

To be a mathematician, religious devotee, scientist, or groupie-worshipper, it takes far less than intelligence.

Personality is a mask we present to the world.

Our mind is what the world rarely sees.

Masks reveal personality (and narrow-mindedness) easily. One who desires to appear enigmatic is being unnecessarily complicated.


Kelly

[kjones]

A koan for you Miss Jones;
Are you one with the nature of two?

I rather fancy this koan, particularly in relation to this masculine versus feminine topic. Nice one.

I had a hunch someone would interpret dualism as the need for a yin-yang type sexual balance. Fancy calling that a koan.

Reality is created by illusionary separation – ie consciousness.

You fell into the same trap with Beingof1. The same rescue: in what realm of Reality do you think consciousness is created?

I think that being born female means one has less capacity to endure difficulties at all.

Yes because females are less emotional than men (and in this regard less conscious to a degree, a decreasing degree actually, not unconscious though as the 'One-Eyed Dicks' here like to pretend). If they were more emotional the result would be that they would create difficulties for themselves which they could learn from - this learning process is where "mature" masculine perseverance and depth stems from.

Nice try, but it's incorrect. Females are more emotional, generally, but aren't propelled by this emotional suffering into rationality, because they indulge in the feminine sensitivity to suffering. Like poets generally, they're deeply selfish and incapable of perceiving pain and suffering rationally. It comes back to sexual egotism: women are seeking power over others, beyond themselves, and won't recognise things directly as what they are. To do so takes the will to individuality.


Kelly

[Jamesh]

I had a hunch someone would interpret dualism as the need for a yin-yang type sexual balance. Fancy calling that a koan.

Well, I liked it because all my personal philosophy is about dualism. To me a koan is something for which the answer must encompass all things, as the above does.

Reality is created by illusionary separation – ie consciousness.

You fell into the same trap with Beingof1. The same rescue: in what realm of Reality do you think consciousness is created?

Not sure what you mean to point out. Consciousness is created by the dualistic physical realm, which itself is created by the dualistic non-physical realm.

Yes because females are less emotional than men (and in this regard less conscious to a degree, a decreasing degree actually, not unconscious though as the 'One-Eyed Dicks' here like to pretend). If they were more emotional the result would be that they would create difficulties for themselves which they could learn from - this learning process is where "mature" masculine perseverance and depth stems from.

Nice try, but it's incorrect.

No it is not incorrect, but I admit it is a theory which I haven’t got around to fleshing out as yet, so I don’t have the full picture. Been meaning to reread David’s Woman essay to see how he deals with this issue.

Females are more emotional, generally, but aren't propelled by this emotional suffering into rationality, because they indulge in the feminine sensitivity to suffering.

No, women indulge in sensitivity to suffering because they feel less, but they still enjoy emotions, so they mentally build them up to be more than they actually are. Hysterics is a learned behaviour – women use it to attract more attention as with more attention they will be caused to experience more emotions. Women’s emotions tend to need direct external causes to be activated, whereas men have greater propensity for self-causing emotions as a result of them being caused while younger to rationalise due to negative reactions from others to their emotional displays when young.

Men by having greater desires seek out situations where satisfaction and suffering can occur, however most by the time they are adults reject their additional emotionalism and seek to rationalise and control it better than women, they certainly have a greater need to do so.

Like poets generally, they're deeply selfish and incapable of perceiving pain and suffering rationally.

This comment applies very much to young boys. Young girls are far more cooperative than young males – why? - because as they feel less, the boredom of cooperation affects them less. As workers women are far better at mundane tasks – why – because they feel less.

It comes back to sexual egotism: women are seeking power over others, beyond themselves, and won't recognise things directly as what they are. To do so takes the will to individuality.

Rubbish. Masculine men seek power over others to a greater extent than women, feminine women tend to seek power over a limited few. Women attempt to draw power into themselves, to make it part of themselves, whereas men tend to spread their personal power over as many others as they have the skills for.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that emotion causes desires, even the desire for rationality, for tools to minimise the irrationalities that emotions cause.

[MKFaizi]

Kelly wrote:

I think that being born female means one has less capacity to endure difficulties at all.

To some extent, I disagree with this. I doubt that many men could have endured my life -- for example -- over the past fifteen years.

I don't think that endurance has anything to do with masculinity. Endurance is a feminine trait.

My great grandmother walked out on a family of six and became a Mississipi River boat moll of some kind.

Many times, I was tempted to follow in her footsteps. I often thought of just getting in the car and driving away -- to Memphis or somewhere.

But, like most females, I endured. It would have been more masculine to have left. I have always known that my kids would have been better off without me. But I lacked the guts to leave.

Also, any woman who could leave her kids is considered a piece of crap. I reckon that was part of it -- even if leaving would be the best thing for the kids.

I think that your femininity is very unconscious, Kelly. You are a good thinker but not nearly as good as you have been lead to believe. You are quite feminine.

Curious how this thread has watered down into drivel.

Faizi

[sevens]

Point was, Kelly, that in order to understand others, you must become them.

A feminine trait.

What you do with that knowledge, is masculine.

-

It also takes time to grow into your face, and head.

Amazing how confident you are about the fact that no female sages have ever existed.

You have much to learn, about Self and Nature.

-

My personality is like the wind.

My person is like fire.

[Jamesh]

Curious how this thread has watered down into drivel.

Will you just fuck off, you dribbling fart.

[obviously she makes me angry at times...:), we all hate being spoken down to by false know alls]

[Leyla Shen]

Kelly Jones:

I reckon that is your finest, most complete piece of written work yet.

[bert]

bert wrote:
there was Madame Blavatsky.


Are you serious?

yes.
Not only had Blavatsky attained extreme power potencies,her two famous books Isis unveiled and especially the secret doctrine were very wholesome,to these day the secret doctrine is still the standard for theosofie and esoterie.
But writing the latter book was also an act of courage,since then everybody knows who God is,for the first time the truth (of the bible)was said.She risked her life with it,not everybody did agree with that .She said that not everything was told,for it was not allowed to tell by those of the secret orders.

Sexual delusion is the most ingrained of any, and like any, is defined clearly in relation to Truth. Femininity is the expression of those who cannot relate to Truth, of those in whom the sexual delusion is deeply, biologically ingrained. It is the instinct to find a mate to complete oneself, believing that perfection is created by coupling. At the core of the feminine mind is this delusional belief that a particular ideal form can solve the psychic puzzle. Essentially the error is wanting to duplicate the self.

Edit: This explains why bert's metaphor of copulation for how sages communicate is false.

What the F*** are you talking about?
1.copulation is the metaphor.
2.copulation was used as a metaphor to explain that copulation was needed to attain love.
two loves :-love for morals,woman,science,etc.
-love for Self
the latter,self-love,is the mental state ,mood or condition that allows inclusion before conception;ea,realization of the self.

Love will seize when copulation is abjured.
3.Copulation being a metaphor of the abstract:
"webster's dictionary 1913:
Definition: \Cop`u*la"tion\, n. [L. copulatio: cf. F.
copulation.]
1. The act of coupling or joining; union; conjunction.

Wit, you know, is the unexpected copulation of
ideas. --Johnson."
4.I never said that sages communicate by copulation.

Quote:
I assure anyone that this is complete bullshit, because it is through the senses we come closest.


Consequently, everything you express, being thought, spreads around the obvious unreliability of your sense-reliance.

I'm sorry,but,when are you going to read what I say?
I said...reasoning is useless to put in contact with reality.
All reality being more abstract than actual as a para-ideal we know of but can not grasp.
We come closest by a unison of the senses.The result,by suitable emotional chanelling can express any abstracts which can not be defined in thought.
My answer to you :I sometimes use reason to rationalize the unclarifiable,but I KNOW that this is only as a "guide",not as truth.

bert wrote:
What is Truth?
All mystery.
How can the banks of a river meet?


Sounds suspiciously like an ape, the laughing-stock of mankind. Mystery can be spoken of as rigorously as Truth. And the banks of a river are not really separate.

My "all mystery" was not an answer to "what is the truth?"
I had to give examples of that what was not to be articulated.
The banks meet 'under water'.

bert wrote:
You are obsessed of truth-finding.


If only it were a returnable compliment.

Again,what I (try to)say is Equality.Genderless.
If you think it is a negative comment than it becomes like that...

Then ,as a last question, Kelly:
What is Truth?That being the truth of the absolute well to speak.That is why it has a big t.