You are going to have to wait an eternity for that to happen. The feminine can't kill what does not exist to begin with. There is no "David Quinn", and ultimately no life or death.
Nice cop-out David. If there is no David, no life, no death and no eternity either... why do you do what you do? Including, building this little testament in the form of a forum to your own self-presumed "enlightened" status. Oh right, I forgot. You're waiting for the right word from me to make you my very own personal Jesus.
Would it kill David to...
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
spiritual_emergency wrote:
What else would you have me do? Reaffirm and strengthen in people's minds the illusion that there is life and death? I value truth too much to do that.
This is the second time you have gone down this track, which suggests to me something deeper is afoot. Have you been burnt by a guru in the past?
-
DQ: You are going to have to wait an eternity for that to happen. The feminine can't kill what does not exist to begin with. There is no "David Quinn", and ultimately no life or death.
SE: Nice cop-out David. If there is no David, no life, no death and no eternity either... why do you do what you do?
What else would you have me do? Reaffirm and strengthen in people's minds the illusion that there is life and death? I value truth too much to do that.
Including, building this little testament in the form of a forum to your own self-presumed "enlightened" status. Oh right, I forgot. You're waiting for the right word from me to make you my very own personal Jesus.
This is the second time you have gone down this track, which suggests to me something deeper is afoot. Have you been burnt by a guru in the past?
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Cory,
It's all relative, isn't it. Compared to a fully-enlightened Buddha, suppressing things out of fear is certainly a feminine activity. It is generated out of a need to remain in a state of comfort and well-being, which in itself is a form of unconsciousness. But compared to the aimless flowiness of women, suppressing things is active, decisive, purposeful behaviour - and therefore masculine.
It just depends on where you want to draw the line.
-
DQ: I don't specifically associate unconsciousness with the feminine. For example, I don't necessarily consider the construction of mental blocks, the compartmentalization of the mind, or the suppression of what is unpleasant as "feminine" behaviour. For this kind of unconsciousness can easily be the result of the consious mind acting out of fear.
C: Hey, but isn't fear irrational?
Like you said: "there is no david Quinn".
To think otherwise is to be unconscious of the fact that there is no david Quinn. So what is there to be frightened about? And only consciousness can realize there is no self and thus free itself from fear - No?
If I do not have the logic to see there is not self, then I am unconscious and thus frightened and thus begin forming mental blocks and supressing things - irrationally things hurt me,
am I not unconscious, irrational and thus feminine?
It's all relative, isn't it. Compared to a fully-enlightened Buddha, suppressing things out of fear is certainly a feminine activity. It is generated out of a need to remain in a state of comfort and well-being, which in itself is a form of unconsciousness. But compared to the aimless flowiness of women, suppressing things is active, decisive, purposeful behaviour - and therefore masculine.
It just depends on where you want to draw the line.
-
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
As I say, it's all relative. Taking drugs to become more unconscious is a more masculine act - as it requires some kind of purposeful activity - than, say, being a pebble sitting idly on the road. Yet it is a more feminine act than, say, striving to conquer all ignorance in a bid to become fully-enlightened.
-
-
-
spiritual_emergency
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:04 am
This is the second time you have gone down this track
Yes, the first time you acknowledged that you wished to "save" others, although you also acknowledged that you preferred to think of yourself as a "midwife". A very masculine midwife, apparently.
Have you been burnt by a guru in the past?
No. But I also acknowledge that this is where we are and in this space, I think it's dangerous for a self-proclaimed guru to go around declaring that a.) they're "enlightened" (a term I personally hold to be limiting in scope since it implies an end state), and b.) they've got the scoop on who is worthy and who is not.
On this level of existence, in every moment of every day, other human beings are starving, they are being tortured, they are being beaten, they are being raped; children are having their limbs blown off, they are seeing their parents murdered before their eyes. This is not illusion and it would be another cop-out to call it as much. Thousands upon thousands of people of every nation and every color undergo horrific atrocities on a daily basis because someone else thinks they are inferior, that they are "lesser than" and therefore, they can justify the brutality of their own behavior by labelling it superior. This is why blacks were branded into slavery; this is why Jews were gassed in ovens; this is why the Inquisition targeted women; this is why boys are sodomized by priests; this is why it's "okay" if Iraqi children roast to death in jet fuel, but it's a crime against humanity if it happens to Americans.
This is the danger I see in your message and your behavior. You present others as inferior and yourself as superior. In your case, you use gender as your preferred tool, but you could just as easily pick youth, nationality, religion, color, ethnicity. And then, you ask of others, to believe you are "enlightened" for doing so.
Yes, the first time you acknowledged that you wished to "save" others, although you also acknowledged that you preferred to think of yourself as a "midwife". A very masculine midwife, apparently.
Have you been burnt by a guru in the past?
No. But I also acknowledge that this is where we are and in this space, I think it's dangerous for a self-proclaimed guru to go around declaring that a.) they're "enlightened" (a term I personally hold to be limiting in scope since it implies an end state), and b.) they've got the scoop on who is worthy and who is not.
On this level of existence, in every moment of every day, other human beings are starving, they are being tortured, they are being beaten, they are being raped; children are having their limbs blown off, they are seeing their parents murdered before their eyes. This is not illusion and it would be another cop-out to call it as much. Thousands upon thousands of people of every nation and every color undergo horrific atrocities on a daily basis because someone else thinks they are inferior, that they are "lesser than" and therefore, they can justify the brutality of their own behavior by labelling it superior. This is why blacks were branded into slavery; this is why Jews were gassed in ovens; this is why the Inquisition targeted women; this is why boys are sodomized by priests; this is why it's "okay" if Iraqi children roast to death in jet fuel, but it's a crime against humanity if it happens to Americans.
This is the danger I see in your message and your behavior. You present others as inferior and yourself as superior. In your case, you use gender as your preferred tool, but you could just as easily pick youth, nationality, religion, color, ethnicity. And then, you ask of others, to believe you are "enlightened" for doing so.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
spiritual-emergency wrote:
I agree. No one on this forum is doing this, as far as I am aware.
What you're describing here is crude, emotional behaviour based in irrational thinking. Again, it has nothing do with what is happening here on this forum.
I am quite happy to pick on anything that obstructs people from developing their reasoning powers and becoming enlightened - and that might include picking on youth, nationality, religion, color, ethnicity, and yes, women and femininity. It's all fair game to me. I am a respector of no one and nothing.
At root, what causes violence, misery and war is not the valuing of truth and the process of intelligent discrimination, but rather emotional attachment to petty things like nation, family, women, children, happiness, land, possessions, etc. If you truly cared about trying to eliminate suffering and violence from the world, then you would be focusing your attention upon the problem of emotional attachment - just as I do.
-
There is a big difference between the two. A saviour encourages submissiveness and passivity in those he saves, while a midwife inspires action and independence of thought. A midwife provokes people into saving themselves.DQ: This is the second time you have gone down this track
SE: Yes, the first time you acknowledged that you wished to "save" others, although you also acknowledged that you preferred to think of yourself as a "midwife".
What other kind can there be?A very masculine midwife, apparently.
DQ: Have you been burnt by a guru in the past?
SE: No. But I also acknowledge that this is where we are and in this space, I think it's dangerous for a self-proclaimed guru to go around declaring that a.) they're "enlightened" (a term I personally hold to be limiting in scope since it implies an end state), and b.) they've got the scoop on who is worthy and who is not.
I agree. No one on this forum is doing this, as far as I am aware.
On this level of existence, in every moment of every day, other human beings are starving, they are being tortured, they are being beaten, they are being raped; children are having their limbs blown off, they are seeing their parents murdered before their eyes. This is not illusion and it would be another cop-out to call it as much. Thousands upon thousands of people of every nation and every color undergo horrific atrocities on a daily basis because someone else thinks they are inferior, that they are "lesser than" and therefore, they can justify the brutality of their own behavior by labelling it superior. This is why blacks were branded into slavery; this is why Jews were gassed in ovens; this is why the Inquisition targeted women; this is why boys are sodomized by priests; this is why it's "okay" if Iraqi children roast to death in jet fuel, but it's a crime against humanity if it happens to Americans.
What you're describing here is crude, emotional behaviour based in irrational thinking. Again, it has nothing do with what is happening here on this forum.
On the contrary, I ask nothing of others, except a love of truth and intelligent thought.This is the danger I see in your message and your behavior. You present others as inferior and yourself as superior. In your case, you use gender as your preferred tool, but you could just as easily pick youth, nationality, religion, color, ethnicity. And then, you ask of others, to believe you are "enlightened" for doing so.
I am quite happy to pick on anything that obstructs people from developing their reasoning powers and becoming enlightened - and that might include picking on youth, nationality, religion, color, ethnicity, and yes, women and femininity. It's all fair game to me. I am a respector of no one and nothing.
At root, what causes violence, misery and war is not the valuing of truth and the process of intelligent discrimination, but rather emotional attachment to petty things like nation, family, women, children, happiness, land, possessions, etc. If you truly cared about trying to eliminate suffering and violence from the world, then you would be focusing your attention upon the problem of emotional attachment - just as I do.
-
-
spiritual_emergency
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:04 am
There is a big difference between the two. A saviour encourages submissiveness and passivity in those he saves, while a midwife inspires action and independence of thought. A midwife provokes people into saving themselves.
So, you're a midwifing, enlightened genius who is detached from everything except, apparently, your own self-defined, self-proclaimed, self-inflated grandiosity. That's not "enlightenment" David, it's vanity. If you saw anyone else admiring in a woman what you admire within your self, you'd pout, stamp your foot, and accuse the whole world of pampering her princessness.
At root, what causes violence, misery and war is not the valuing of truth and the process of intelligent discrimination, but rather emotional attachment to petty things like nation, family, women, children, happiness, land, possessions, etc.
Whose definition of truth would we be going with, David -- yours? I like mine better. What causes violence and war is always the belief that one is justified in their actions, no matter how brutal, because they believe they are of more worth and value than the other. Whether or not that's "truth" is irrelevant. What matters is that it is believed to be true. Remember, Hitler had "truth" and "intelligent discrimination" on his side too. So does Bush for that matter.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to do some editing before my words end up on either yours or Kevin's personal shrine of self-adoration.
.
So, you're a midwifing, enlightened genius who is detached from everything except, apparently, your own self-defined, self-proclaimed, self-inflated grandiosity. That's not "enlightenment" David, it's vanity. If you saw anyone else admiring in a woman what you admire within your self, you'd pout, stamp your foot, and accuse the whole world of pampering her princessness.
At root, what causes violence, misery and war is not the valuing of truth and the process of intelligent discrimination, but rather emotional attachment to petty things like nation, family, women, children, happiness, land, possessions, etc.
Whose definition of truth would we be going with, David -- yours? I like mine better. What causes violence and war is always the belief that one is justified in their actions, no matter how brutal, because they believe they are of more worth and value than the other. Whether or not that's "truth" is irrelevant. What matters is that it is believed to be true. Remember, Hitler had "truth" and "intelligent discrimination" on his side too. So does Bush for that matter.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to do some editing before my words end up on either yours or Kevin's personal shrine of self-adoration.
.
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Leyla,
I guess you thought I was talking about the common dictionary definitions. When I said consensus, I was talking about the consensus established by the G-forum moderators. But considering I did emphasis the significance of the dictionary in a later post, it probably confused things a bit.
My mistake.
I should have been more specific.
When i said consensus, I was refering to the consensus shared by the moderators and members of this forum.Cory: I cant imagine how anyone could find it meaningful unless they carry a definition of femininty and masculinity that strays far from the consensus.
Leyla: You‘re kidding, right? What consensus?
I guess you thought I was talking about the common dictionary definitions. When I said consensus, I was talking about the consensus established by the G-forum moderators. But considering I did emphasis the significance of the dictionary in a later post, it probably confused things a bit.
My mistake.
I should have been more specific.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
spiritual_emergency wrote:
I'm attached to being open and honest in what I do. I don't like the fake humility that is found everywhere in religious and spiritual circles.
I can assure you that I never give a thought to my own status here or elsewhere, and certainly don't give any attention to whether I should wear the "enlightenment" label or not. That sort of thing doesn't interest me. In everything that I do, I simply focus on speaking the truth as I see it.
Everyone believes that their own actions are justified and are worth more than the actions of those whom they disagree with or hold different values. Even you do this.
You're not being honest with your own motivations, and your insights into the nature of your own behaviour are still quite shallow.
-
DQ: There is a big difference between the two. A saviour encourages submissiveness and passivity in those he saves, while a midwife inspires action and independence of thought. A midwife provokes people into saving themselves.
SE: So, you're a midwifing, enlightened genius who is detached from everything except, apparently, your own self-defined, self-proclaimed, self-inflated grandiosity.
I'm attached to being open and honest in what I do. I don't like the fake humility that is found everywhere in religious and spiritual circles.
I can assure you that I never give a thought to my own status here or elsewhere, and certainly don't give any attention to whether I should wear the "enlightenment" label or not. That sort of thing doesn't interest me. In everything that I do, I simply focus on speaking the truth as I see it.
DQ: At root, what causes violence, misery and war is not the valuing of truth and the process of intelligent discrimination, but rather emotional attachment to petty things like nation, family, women, children, happiness, land, possessions, etc.
SE: Whose definition of truth would we be going with, David -- yours? I like mine better. What causes violence and war is always the belief that one is justified in their actions, no matter how brutal, because they believe they are of more worth and value than the other.
Everyone believes that their own actions are justified and are worth more than the actions of those whom they disagree with or hold different values. Even you do this.
You're not being honest with your own motivations, and your insights into the nature of your own behaviour are still quite shallow.
Everyone believes they have the truth on their side - even you. So this is not the issue. What is the issue is whether this belief is justified or not. In my opinion, it is vitally important to make every effort to ensure that one's "truth" is indeed the truth, and not simply a fantasy of one's own making.Whether or not that's "truth" is irrelevant. What matters is that it is believed to be true. Remember, Hitler had "truth" and "intelligent discrimination" on his side too. So does Bush for that matter.
Just to let everyone know, I have banned the username "spiritual_emergency" because of this threat to edit or delete past posts. I have written to him privately and said that he is welcome to come back to the forum under another name, as long as he gives his word not to edit or delete past posts in the future.Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to do some editing before my words end up on either yours or Kevin's personal shrine of self-adoration.
-
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Cory,
I plan to elaborate on my previous post soon. In the meantime, suffice it to say that I will never look at a flower the same way again...
.
No, my point is things are very much already confused. I don't think such a consensus exists, even among the members (as a whole) of this forum.When i said consensus, I was refering to the consensus shared by the moderators and members of this forum.
I guess you thought I was talking about the common dictionary definitions. When I said consensus, I was talking about the consensus established by the G-forum moderators. But considering I did emphasis the significance of the dictionary in a later post, it probably confused things a bit.
I plan to elaborate on my previous post soon. In the meantime, suffice it to say that I will never look at a flower the same way again...
.
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Leyla wrote:
However, among Q, R, and S, and a few others, I think its been made quite clear what femininity means to at least them.
But I'd love to hear more about your revelations concerning the meaning of femininity, because I am open minded and will change the way I see things if it makes sense.
No, maybe not among the members as a whole .I don't think such a consensus exists, even among the members (as a whole) of this forum.
However, among Q, R, and S, and a few others, I think its been made quite clear what femininity means to at least them.
But I'd love to hear more about your revelations concerning the meaning of femininity, because I am open minded and will change the way I see things if it makes sense.
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Corey,
Corey wrote:
Corey also wrote:
Corey wrote:
I have the depest respect for you for that statement. Acknowledgements such as this take a great deal more courage than many, perhaps even most, people have. It also indicates a willingness to grow, which is the seed of true intelligence and wisdom. I have seen evidence of your wisdom in other posts, and I want to honor the seed from which your wisdom grows.My mistake.
I should have been more specific.
Corey also wrote:
This is further evidence. I reiterate my respect for you.I am open minded and will change the way I see things if it makes sense.
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
David wrote:
I agree withEveryone believes they have the truth on their side - even you. So this is not the issue. What is the issue is whether this belief is justified or not. In my opinion, it is vitally important to make every effort to ensure that one's "truth" is indeed the truth, and not simply a fantasy of one's own making.
but I beleive the difference between the ability to grow one's wisdom and being stuck in fantasyland hinges on the difference between believing that they have the truth on their side and believing that they may have the truth on their side. Increased evidence increases the likelihood that the truth they see is the real truth, but it is the willingness to re-examine a personal truth in light of increased evidence that feeds wisdom. Continually re-examining does not actually take as much time as the average person might think it does becasue it does not involve rehashing all that was previously established (there is a difference), and the results are definatly worth the little extra time that being open-minded requires.it is vitally important to make every effort to ensure that one's "truth" is indeed the truth, and not simply a fantasy of one's own making.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Cory,
So, wherein lies the biological link to unconsciousness, Cory?
In that same post I also made the following comment:
To give you an idea, when I looked at the diagram -- and traced the definitions -- the thing that struck me the most was the fact that in humans the stamen and the pistil have been severed from the whole to such an extent that it seems that one has nothing to do with the other -- to such an extent that woman (and therefore by the forum owners' arbitrary values, "unconsciousness") was begotten without assistance from and is entirely separate to man (consciousness). As if you can cut "woman" out of the male genetic line -- you can at least ascribe such a thing to his own unconsciousness, manifesting in his choice of a mate.But I'd love to hear more about your revelations concerning the meaning of femininity, because I am open minded and will change the way I see things if it makes sense.
So, wherein lies the biological link to unconsciousness, Cory?
In that same post I also made the following comment:
.So, ultimately, it is the possession or non-possession of ovaries that is proof positive of unconsciousness -- not logic, which comprehends the absolute and discriminates relativity.
Elizabeth Isabelle asks: SE, Why did you delete so many of your posts?
I have been deleting some of my posts since I arrived, Elizabeth. My reasons for doing so are...
a.) When a conversation has moved on, it has moved on. If we were holding a discussion face to face, my words and your words, would come into being and then fall away.
b.) Some conversations are more private than others, even if they occur within a public setting. Once the other individual has read the message, there is no need for the message to remain.
c.) The great spiritual truths have already been said. As but one example, could I possibly top the truth contained in the poem The Thunder, Perfect Mind? No. Therefore, the poem stays, the link to ego death stays, but my words don't have to.
d.) I have seen my fair share of board hosts who cross over the line between ethical and impartial hosting and hosting motivated by personal bias and prejudice. For example, posting a statement of board expectations and then modifying it as they find useful, i.e., determining that one participant's contributions are in fact, spam. Or banning an individual who has been removing their posts since they arrived with their apparent knowledge (David was reading those threads too) without ever providing them the opportunity to understand that doing so went against the "unspoken" rules. Although the motive is often presented as protecting a noble cause within the community, on closer examination, it's more often themselves that they are protecting. I don't believe David was near as interested in protecting the community as imposing control. I also think he'll come to regret his actions because they demonstrate illogic and weakness; the stronger man would have given me the opportunity to know the board standard before acting to silence and remove me.
Everyone believes they have the truth on their side - even you. So this is not the issue. What is the issue is whether this belief is justified or not. In my opinion, it is vitally important to make every effort to ensure that one's "truth" is indeed the truth, and not simply a fantasy of one's own making.
My disagreement with you is in regard to your self-proclaimed "enlightenment" status. Clearly, you have found sufficient personal justification to present yourself as such an individual, but belief alone does not render a matter to be absolute. Personally, I think you may be intelligent, you may be well read, you may be well-educated, but your behavior -- particularly in regard to women -- does not match your self-assigned label. Nor does Kevin's, who this morning is going about touting the genetic handicap of the feminine gender as a barrier to realizing greater spiritual truths. We might as well seek the Truth on the status of blacks from a white plantation owner in the 18th century. The white man already believes the black man is his inferior; whatever truth he may provide will be tainted by this belief. We do not have to be "enlightened" to recognize bias for bias and I am far from alone in seeing it.
Is there some truth in what you say in regard to women? Indeed. But when these same behaviors are pointed out in you, you get wishy-washy -- suddenly what is "masculine" and what is "feminine" becomes relative and subjective. You seem to have a great deal more tolerance towards your self than what you extend to others. Personally, what you have to say about women might be considered more relevant if you'd ever actually had a successful relationship with one, but by your own admission you have not. I think you're compensating for that lack and scapegoating your own dysfunctionality onto the women around you. I suggest some shadow work. Within the veil of maya you will find a great deal of projected bias and assumption. The world is a reflection. As above, so below.
Just to let everyone know, I have banned the username "spiritual_emergency" because of this threat to edit or delete past posts. I have written to him privately and said that he is welcome to come back to the forum under another name, as long as he gives his word not to edit or delete past posts in the future.
That's mighty generous of you, but I think I'd be wise to pass your forum by. Meantime, whatever possessed you to believe that just because an individual can fix a sink, they must be a male?
Regards,
s_e
[Edited for links.]
I have been deleting some of my posts since I arrived, Elizabeth. My reasons for doing so are...
a.) When a conversation has moved on, it has moved on. If we were holding a discussion face to face, my words and your words, would come into being and then fall away.
b.) Some conversations are more private than others, even if they occur within a public setting. Once the other individual has read the message, there is no need for the message to remain.
c.) The great spiritual truths have already been said. As but one example, could I possibly top the truth contained in the poem The Thunder, Perfect Mind? No. Therefore, the poem stays, the link to ego death stays, but my words don't have to.
d.) I have seen my fair share of board hosts who cross over the line between ethical and impartial hosting and hosting motivated by personal bias and prejudice. For example, posting a statement of board expectations and then modifying it as they find useful, i.e., determining that one participant's contributions are in fact, spam. Or banning an individual who has been removing their posts since they arrived with their apparent knowledge (David was reading those threads too) without ever providing them the opportunity to understand that doing so went against the "unspoken" rules. Although the motive is often presented as protecting a noble cause within the community, on closer examination, it's more often themselves that they are protecting. I don't believe David was near as interested in protecting the community as imposing control. I also think he'll come to regret his actions because they demonstrate illogic and weakness; the stronger man would have given me the opportunity to know the board standard before acting to silence and remove me.
Everyone believes they have the truth on their side - even you. So this is not the issue. What is the issue is whether this belief is justified or not. In my opinion, it is vitally important to make every effort to ensure that one's "truth" is indeed the truth, and not simply a fantasy of one's own making.
My disagreement with you is in regard to your self-proclaimed "enlightenment" status. Clearly, you have found sufficient personal justification to present yourself as such an individual, but belief alone does not render a matter to be absolute. Personally, I think you may be intelligent, you may be well read, you may be well-educated, but your behavior -- particularly in regard to women -- does not match your self-assigned label. Nor does Kevin's, who this morning is going about touting the genetic handicap of the feminine gender as a barrier to realizing greater spiritual truths. We might as well seek the Truth on the status of blacks from a white plantation owner in the 18th century. The white man already believes the black man is his inferior; whatever truth he may provide will be tainted by this belief. We do not have to be "enlightened" to recognize bias for bias and I am far from alone in seeing it.
Is there some truth in what you say in regard to women? Indeed. But when these same behaviors are pointed out in you, you get wishy-washy -- suddenly what is "masculine" and what is "feminine" becomes relative and subjective. You seem to have a great deal more tolerance towards your self than what you extend to others. Personally, what you have to say about women might be considered more relevant if you'd ever actually had a successful relationship with one, but by your own admission you have not. I think you're compensating for that lack and scapegoating your own dysfunctionality onto the women around you. I suggest some shadow work. Within the veil of maya you will find a great deal of projected bias and assumption. The world is a reflection. As above, so below.
Just to let everyone know, I have banned the username "spiritual_emergency" because of this threat to edit or delete past posts. I have written to him privately and said that he is welcome to come back to the forum under another name, as long as he gives his word not to edit or delete past posts in the future.
That's mighty generous of you, but I think I'd be wise to pass your forum by. Meantime, whatever possessed you to believe that just because an individual can fix a sink, they must be a male?
Regards,
s_e
[Edited for links.]
Last edited by s_e on Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:09 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Keep in mind that a large number of people read the posts on this forum, and some people will be reading these posts years from now since all these posts are archived and made available through the Internet. If one person's posts are removed it destroys the flow of the thread, making it much more difficult to follow.Once the other individual has read the message, there is no need for the message to remain.
If you want to send someone a personal message then click on their user name and then click on the "pm" button to send them a personal message.
Leyla,
I didn't really understand your post, but the gonads are not the place to look. Yesterday I was reading a book in the bookstore, called The Female Brain. The female brain is different from the male one. So if what these guys say about femininity is true, then we're pretty much stuck.
I didn't really understand your post, but the gonads are not the place to look. Yesterday I was reading a book in the bookstore, called The Female Brain. The female brain is different from the male one. So if what these guys say about femininity is true, then we're pretty much stuck.
Truth is a pathless land.
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Leyla,
Have patience with this old boy here and stick with me on this one.
First of all, I thought a ‘stamen’ and a ‘pistil’ were exclusive to plants? Why do you say ‘in humans?’
Maybe I am more ignorant in biology than I thought.
In other words, are you saying that consciousness causes(creates) unconsciousness?
I also think that is absurd and I don’t think the intention of Quinn or Solway is to encourage people to completely destroy woman physically and totally eradicate sensuality and feeling -
- instead what I think they are advocating (or at least what I advocate) is the dominance of reason and logic, rather than the dominance of unbrideld wild emotion, rather than the dominance of ‘the wildness of nature without rational husbandry’, rather than the dominance of bodily sensuality and emotions.
Perhaps that is why ‘god’ is used in the masculine, and ‘earth’ is used in the feminine.
Mother earth produces well with intelligent, masculine husbandry.
We all have chaos(woman, the dionysian) within us, and with a (masculine, apollonian) rational mind, we can put that chaos to good use.
I don’t understand this part (although maybe I would if I didn’t fragment everything - -- but by dividing things up into fragments and examining more carefully, perhaps we can see the whole within the fragment)
As for the biological link to the unconscious behavior of a dog……well, I would consider that trivial. Are you looking for a neuro-physiological explaination or something?
I’m sorry Leyla, I just don’t understand what you are trying to say.Leyla: the thing that struck me the most was the fact that in humans the stamen and the pistil have been severed from the whole to such an extent that it seems that one has nothing to do with the other
Have patience with this old boy here and stick with me on this one.
First of all, I thought a ‘stamen’ and a ‘pistil’ were exclusive to plants? Why do you say ‘in humans?’
Maybe I am more ignorant in biology than I thought.
Are you trying to say that unconsciousness is the effect of consciousness?
I realize I’m quoting merely a fragment of your writing here, and thus it may seem I am quoting you out of context here, but my intention is simply to examine a fragment of what you said in order to get you to clarify what you mean. I found this post as a whole to be very hard to understand (yes, I could very well be a moron), so I’m just focusing on a few fragments that I feel are the key points.
Leyla: woman ("unconsciousness") was begotten without assistance from and is entirely separate to man (consciousness).
In other words, are you saying that consciousness causes(creates) unconsciousness?
I’m not confidently sure what you mean by the ‘male genetic line’, but I’m guessing that you think it is absurd for someone to want to love the fruits and vegetables yet hate the soil that is necessary to grow the fruits and vegetables.Leyla: As if you can cut "woman" out of the male genetic line
I also think that is absurd and I don’t think the intention of Quinn or Solway is to encourage people to completely destroy woman physically and totally eradicate sensuality and feeling -
- instead what I think they are advocating (or at least what I advocate) is the dominance of reason and logic, rather than the dominance of unbrideld wild emotion, rather than the dominance of ‘the wildness of nature without rational husbandry’, rather than the dominance of bodily sensuality and emotions.
Perhaps that is why ‘god’ is used in the masculine, and ‘earth’ is used in the feminine.
Mother earth produces well with intelligent, masculine husbandry.
We all have chaos(woman, the dionysian) within us, and with a (masculine, apollonian) rational mind, we can put that chaos to good use.
Sorry, Leyla, can you rewrite this for me?Leyla: you can at least ascribe such a thing to his own unconsciousness, manifesting in his choice of a mate.
I don’t understand this part (although maybe I would if I didn’t fragment everything - -- but by dividing things up into fragments and examining more carefully, perhaps we can see the whole within the fragment)
Look at it this way: I would say animals are not conscious that they are conscious – and any consciousness they do have is accompanied by a great deal of unconsciousness. A dog doesn’t know why he feels a compulsion to bark aggressively at strangers, or piss on almost every tree in this vicinity.Leyla: So, wherein lies the biological link to unconsciousness, Cory?
As for the biological link to the unconscious behavior of a dog……well, I would consider that trivial. Are you looking for a neuro-physiological explaination or something?
I think it is very unwise to to equate ovaries with unconsciousness Leyla. I think you are narrowing in on a very small aspect of a dictionary definition and ignoring other aspects of feminity such as: sensitivity, gentleness, softness, sympathy, sensuality, seduction, childishness, intoxication, delicacy, sexuality, emotionalism, weakness, excessive refinement, multiplicity, self-indulgence, etc, etc....Leyla: So, ultimately, it is not the possession or non-possession of ovaries that is proof positive of unconsciousness
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Iolaus wrote:
Kevin posted:
SE - thank you for explaining your position. I agree with the wrongness you noted in the following point(s):
I see that you, se, have made many valuable contributions to the board. I hope that you and your contributions stay.
True. (only one example of many different kinds available) There was a case where there were several accidents one day during circumcisions related to improper use of or improper functioning of equipment, and the penises of several infants were destroyed. The parents were given the option of raising their sons with the damage as it was or reconstructive surgery and hormones to change them into daughters. One boy that was changed into a daughter came out with his story of figuring out that something was wrong based on how different he noticed that he was from other girls, eventually finding the truth, and changing back into a man. The brain is different.The female brain is different from the male one.
Kevin posted:
I agree.quoting se:
Once the other individual has read the message, there is no need for the message to remain.
KS:
Keep in mind that a large number of people read the posts on this forum, and some people will be reading these posts years from now since all these posts are archived and made available through the Internet. If one person's posts are removed it destroys the flow of the thread, making it much more difficult to follow.
If you want to send someone a personal message then click on their user name and then click on the "pm" button to send them a personal message.
SE - thank you for explaining your position. I agree with the wrongness you noted in the following point(s):
Clear and specific warning should be given before banning a person, as that is a more mature way of handling a person. In this case, he did not ban you, only your user name for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the threads. It sounds to me like you are quite welcome here.I have seen my fair share of board hosts who cross over the line between ethical and impartial hosting and hosting motivated by personal bias and prejudice. For example, posting a statement of board expectations and then modifying it as they find useful, i.e., determining that one participant's contributions are in fact, spam. Or banning an individual who has been removing their posts since they arrived with their apparent knowledge (David was reading those threads too) without ever providing them the opportunity to understand that doing so went against the "unspoken" rules. Although the motive is often presented as protecting a noble cause within the community, on closer examination, it's more often themselves that they are protecting. I don't believe David was near as interested in protecting the community as imposing control. I also think he'll come to regret his actions because they demonstrate illogic and weakness; the stronger man would have given me the opportunity to know the board standard before acting to silence and remove me.
I see that you, se, have made many valuable contributions to the board. I hope that you and your contributions stay.
...
Don't distress yourself over the edited posts David. We know I was leaving anyway.
Don't distress yourself over the edited posts David. We know I was leaving anyway.
Last edited by s_e on Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.
.
Iolaus writes:
again:
.
Iolaus writes:
Did it say that the female brain was unconscious? - that this was the difference?Yesterday I was reading a book in the bookstore, called The Female Brain. The female brain is different from the male one.
again:
Nice work, Iolaus, handing over all your thinking to a half-perused book and what-these-guys-say. Yep, you're pretty much stuck.So if what these guys say about femininity is true, then we're pretty much stuck.
.
SE mentioned that Enlightenment, his definition, was a kind of endstate. I disagree with this definition. A person may be enlightened as a logical understanding, but not have his emotional state fully and consistently in line with his logical understanding of reality. Are they then fully deluded, partially deluded, enlightened, or partially enlightened? What does it matter?
How you or I choose to label that person is ultimately up to us. It is not the same as perfection. If that person wants to claim "enlightenment", so what? If we agree or disagree, as a personal choice, so what?
This is not groupthink. No one here has "followers." We are all individuals and responsible for our choices, whether we realize that truth or not. Getting upset or out of joint over someone else's vision or feeling about themselves is entirely misplaced energy.
How you or I choose to label that person is ultimately up to us. It is not the same as perfection. If that person wants to claim "enlightenment", so what? If we agree or disagree, as a personal choice, so what?
This is not groupthink. No one here has "followers." We are all individuals and responsible for our choices, whether we realize that truth or not. Getting upset or out of joint over someone else's vision or feeling about themselves is entirely misplaced energy.