Would it kill David to...

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:54 am

se:
In that case, it was a pleasure meeting you and I hope you return sometimes. I don't plan to devote my life to this board either as peace is my main calling. I came here for food for thought, and saw a need for some peaceful influence (and have rather felt like I have been working since I got here). When I go away, it won't be forever. It would be nice to run into you again.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:59 am

Tharan wrote:

Getting upset or out of joint over someone else's vision or feeling about themselves is entirely misplaced energy.

I agree. If someone wants to benevolently share a truth that another person does not see, that is a noble endeavor. If they are open to it, that is good and it is possible that both will learn from the exchanged. If the person is not open to it, it is worse than a waste to force the issue. Enlightenment is never spread by ranting and raving.

s_e · Post by **s_e** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:54 am

...

I am so glad I edited my earlier posts. I am still laughing at the moment over the infantilism of the host. It's a circle jerk folks, and that's all it is. Participants exist to stroke David and Kevin's egos -- the two self-declared sages who will not fail to tell others repeatedly, how enlightened, intelligent, etc. they are. It's a classic sign of narcissism. Not enlightenment. No true "sage" displays the behavior these apparently grown men pass off as spiritual wisdom. If the goal is to think for yourselves, THINK.

Best of luck to you.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:30 am

se wrote:

Great harm has been done by a number of these "false gurus".

True, but it would have been a waste of energy to try to convince Hitler that there was somethig wrong with his viewpoint. It would have been easier to wake up the first hundred (or fewer) people he deluded, and that would only have been accomplished by calm (but vocal) rationality.

People unlike Hitler can be wrong but still rational, in which case a calm reasoning with the individual is helpful. In return, even if a person was wrong, he still may have some valid points that were not seen by others and he still makes a contribution. Anger shuts down reason, then nothing is learned.

Perhaps Tharan's "so what" wasn't the best expression, and I believe that you, se, provided an excellent "that's what" in response. Getting riled up about things doesn't fix anything, but appropriatly advocating right thinking is important.
***********************
Huh? editing to add clarity, none of the above is changed.

se: I liked your pre-edited post better because it was a more complete thought. It would have been very worthwhile for mass absorbtion.

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:30 am

So this is your Knight In Shining Armor Act, SE? Save it. As I said before, there are no sheep here. We eat them quickly.

Just the idea that you can come in here and save some individuals from the Boogeyman is flagrantly egotistical. Even if this were some Branch Dividian-type cult, from the perspective of this forum those people (except for the children perhaps) essentially deserved their fate. They made a choice and now they must live with it. There is no salvation, only individual understanding.

Your stated vision of yourself as Mother Theresa saving us is bullshit. You may state this now ("I just want to save the world!") but that is not why you have posted these last few weeks. It was to win an argument for yourself, and you know it.

And now do I understand correctly that you are leaving? Haha. Typical. Bye Bye.

For anyone else who is exhausted and considering leaving, think honestly about why you came here in the first place. It is a place to discuss personal adventures and individual journeys through "life" in pursuit of experience and truth. We can learn from each other. But consistently trying to out-enlighten each other is pointless and even childish.

*Edit*

SE, you are pure chickenshit for editing your post after it was responded too.

*edit2*

Thank you for putting it back.

*edit3*
NM, Se is chickenshit.

s_e · Post by **s_e** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:02 am

It is a place to discuss personal adventures and individual journeys through "life" in pursuit of experience and truth. We can learn from each other. But consistently trying to out-enlighten each other is pointless and even childish.

Agreed. Therefore, what is your point in pissing in the pot? You state your views, I state mine (which you are free to discard or adopt as your own), and then you jump up and down, get excited and have to tell me why I'm wrong and you're right. You are displaying precisely the behavior you have just criticized without any apparent awareness that you are doing so.

I can understand the dissappointment expressed by participants like Pye and Ankit. The potential is here in spades, but sitting just beneath it is a palapable stench. The bottom line is I think Ankit would be wise to move on and so would I. Given the general theme in a number of the discussions of late, so would many others. Admittedly, in my brief time here I've enjoyed rubbing elbows with some, but if the ongoing issues have not been resolved in nine years, they're not going to. Despite your accusations of wanting to save others, I'm not interested. It's not my mess to clean up and I'm not your mommy. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that some sort of accusation must follow me out the door: Ankit gets "scare-mongering," I'll get something else.

***

SE, you are pure chickenshit for editing your post after it was responded too.

Really Tharan? There seems to be some assumption that I am obligated to "share" myself. I'm not. I have no objection to leaving behind the words of great spiritual teachers but my own experience is still being digested; often, this is best done in privacy; in silence; in the company of one's own guides. Even if I put it out there, I should still retain the option of pulling it back if it feels premature. If David does not want others editing their own posts, he can turn off the editing feature.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:25 am

Tharan wrote:

Getting upset or out of joint over someone else's vision or feeling about themselves is entirely misplaced energy.

and then wrote:

So this is your Knight In Shining Armor Act, SE? Save it. As I said before, there are no sheep here. We eat them quickly.

Just the idea that you can come in here and save some individuals from the Boogeyman is flagrantly egotistical. Even if this were some Branch Dividian-type cult, from the perspective of this forum those people (except for the children perhaps) essentially deserved their fate. They made a choice and now they must live with it. There is no salvation, only individual understanding.

Your stated vision of yourself as Mother Theresa saving us is bullshit.

I'm sensing some misplaced energy...

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:17 am

Did it say that the female brain was unconscious? - that this was the difference?

No, of course not. However, boys and girls are not in quite the same world. Are we not perceivers? Is the brain not the organ of perception?

So if what these guys say about femininity is true, then we're pretty much stuck.

Nice work, Iolaus, handing over all your thinking to a half-perused book and what-these-guys-say. Yep, you're pretty much stuck.

I've done no such thing. I'm not in the least worried that I lack the capacity for enlightenment.

Anyway, I think if a person wants enlightenment, they have the capacity. It's the wanting that's tricky.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:48 am

.

Cory wrote [in response to Kierkegaard quote]:

Besides, did I say there was anything wrong with â€˜straying from the consensusâ€™?

No I did not.

Pardon, Cory, plumb missed this post somehow in the speed of this thread.

Quote provided was not of a personal attack nature, nor really is it about the process/necessity of word definitions. The crowd is untruth, but the individual within it is not.

So, doesn't this individual - Cory - have a step to consider past how Kevin and David have defined?

Like Solway and Quinn (in part because of Solway and Quinn), I too define femininity as unconsciousness

What is the other part of your reasoning for defining femininity as unconsciousness? I'm asking after your own rationale, unless this definition stands, not in part, but in whole because of Solway & Quinn.

.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:03 am

.

Ta for the clarification, Iolaus. I could not get all of that from your initial sentences.

.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:08 pm

Hello Pye,

Pye: What is the other part of your reasoning for defining femininity as unconsciousness?

Because an unconscious being (such as an animal like a bird or a dog) has either no rationality/reason, or very limited rationality/reason.

Now perhaps you may ask; why do I define rationality/reason as â€˜masculineâ€™?

If you were to ask me that, I would answer by asking you: â€œwhy, historically, have there been no major female philosophers or scientists?â€

There answer is: rationality/reason is a relatively cold, unemotional, un-sensual process. It is also very â€˜penetrativeâ€™. A rational mind penetrates, delves into.

I consider children feminine, because children, to a large extent, are unconscious. Almost all woman and most men are simply big children who had never got in the habit of reflecting consciously. They rarely become conscious that they are conscious, and when they do reflect somewhat deeply, it is very bewildering and uncomfortable for them and thus they donâ€™t devote their lives to becoming more and more conscious, but instead devote their lives to escaping from the initial discomfort of greater consciousness by irrationally becoming enthralled in cartoon like ideas and by indulging in food and sex.

Devoting your life to becoming conscious is painful because it is offensive and alienating to the more unconscious people who derive happiness via illusions, vanity, sex, food and drug.

It is painful for the seeker of truth to be truthful, to the degree that it is painful to the family members, friends and anyone who happens to, by chance, have a conversation or want comfort or obedience from the seeker of truth.

That is another reason why I see femininity has a hindrance (at least in the beginning). A feminine person is sympathetic and eager to be pleasing socially, they are gentle and egotistically sensitive and thus they havenâ€™t the aggression, callousness and single mindedness to disregard the feelings of more fragile people in favor of being more and more truthful.

I consider animals to be feminine. A dog is not conscious he is unconscious.

Unconscious/feminine beings are driven by a desire for particular familar sensations, food, sex, emotion, and illusion.

Masculine beings are logical and use their logic to negate worldliness and thus become attuned to the most primordial, pure and ancient of sensations -- -sensations of which elude illogical people who are slaves to sex, food and cartoon like images of themselves, of their partner, of their friends, country, species, etcâ€¦

So ultimately the goal is to reach a seemingly feminine state, however, such a state cannot be reached without great masculinity. Without great masculinity, one is enslaved into a lesser feminine state, a feminine state which just so happens to be the master to a lesser form of masculinity.

And thus we have a world that is on the brink of destruction.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:17 pm

Cory,

I'd be weary of assuming that animals/plants are unconscious and feminine.

What you project into nature, you receive.

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:20 pm

SE,

The reason for not editing posts after they are responded too is like a government writing its own history. It is a function of accountability, which you are conveniently avoiding.

ashton · Post by **ashton** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:18 pm

hahhahahahahh
ancient Assyrian tablet (from about 2800BC):
"our earth is degenerate in these latter days. there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end."
Plato, 2 and a half thousand years later:
"what is happening to our young people? they riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. their morals are decaying. what will become of them?"
Cory Patrick, almost 2 and half thousand years after that:
"we have a world that is on the brink of destruction."

you know, some animals become enlightened during their life, dogs are an example, i have met several enlightened dogs.

i have met two enlightened women, one dead.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:45 pm

Corey wrote:

they havenâ€™t the aggression, callousness and single mindedness to disregard the feelings of more fragile people in favor of being more and more truthful.

or it could be looked at as many men and a number of women do not have the skill to phrase the truth in a non-offensive way. Truth is for all beings, not just callous individuals. Much truth is known, and shared, by gentle souls - but the callous so not have the sensitivity to hear it. Since there are far more gentle people than truly callous individuals (as opposed to those who put on the "tough guy" act), there is much truth that the callous are unable to hear.

s_e · Post by **s_e** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:25 pm

The reason for not editing posts after they are responded too is like a government writing its own history. It is a function of accountability, which you are conveniently avoiding.

Nice deflection from Elizabeth's point, Tharan. I think in your case it would be wise for anyone engaging with you to realize that whatever you are saying about them, is a statement on your own behavior. Where is your accountability Tharan and why are you avoiding it?

Otherwise, what you say might have merit if I was going around saying nasty things (i.e., David is nothing more than an unemployed narcissist who cannot hold down a job nor have a successful relationship with a woman, not an enlightened sage), erasing those posts, and then claiming I didn't say what I did. I'm not doing that. I removed a post related to the work I currently do and I removed a post that went into personal detail about my own experience of ego death.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:08 pm

Hey Steve,

Steve: I'd be weary of assuming that animals/plants are unconscious and feminine.

I don't think animals actually are capable of the sort of consciousness that is conscious that it's conscious. When an organism can reflect on its own improbability and begin philosophizing and experimenting - now thats getting into some higher levels of consciousness. Only humans seem to do that, and only rarely.

I don't think animals, insects and plants find it strange and mysterious that they exist.

I find Dogs, dolphins, whales, and monkeys show indications that there are animals besides humans who can anticipate in excitement, get depressed, have motives, which are all relatively high degress of consciousness, HOWEVER, they are still unconscious a great deal, they are mostly motivated by food and egotistical emotions.

Perhaps dolphins are conscious that they are conscious, however, dolphins have been know to exhibit some very violent and sadistic behavior when they get together in groups (much like humans do), so in that case, dolphins also are unconscious of what they are doing.

But the consciousness of dolphins is interesting. I wonder how broadly and complex they can think.....

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:46 am

in se's 6th edit of 9/11/06, se wrote:

I am so glad I edited my earlier posts. I am still laughing at the moment over the infantilism of the host. It's a circle jerk folks, and that's all it is. Participants exist to stroke David and Kevin's egos -- the two self-declared sages who will not fail to tell others repeatedly, how enlightened, intelligent, etc. they are. It's a classic sign of narcissism. Not enlightenment. No true "sage" displays the behavior these apparently grown men pass off as spiritual wisdom. If the goal is to think for yourselves, THINK.

Best of luck to you.

I do believe that thinking for one's self is quite important.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:51 am

se wrote:

I removed a post related to the work I currently do and I removed a post that went into personal detail about my own experience of ego death.

Probably a good idea considering the maturity level of some of the members.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:55 am

Corey wrote:

I would answer by asking you: â€œwhy, historically, have there been no major female philosophers or scientists?â€

Please check your data.

It is true that there have not been very many, but considering the barriers to get into any of the "boy's clubs" it is amazing that there have been any contributors in any "boy's club" arenas.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:21 am

Boys clubs?

Sure, but that would have meant that there would have been 'girls clubs' as well. While the boys were off to do their thing, the girls got together to do theirs.

kind of makes you wonder why there hadnt been any science, philosophy or powerful art happening in the 'girls clubs'.

Did the boys go so far as to segregate women from each other, not allowing them to form clubs?

I don't think so.

Women did not have much to do with the devolopment of science, mathmatics, philosophy and even art because they werent all that interested.

So it appears to me

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:05 am

Cory wrote:

Women did not have much to do with the devolopment of science, mathmatics, philosophy and even art because they werent all that interested.

Naturally, because they have ovaries, they're still not interested. It only looks that way.

.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:02 am

Leyla,

Cory: Women did not have much to do with the devolopment of science, mathmatics, philosophy and even art because they weren't all that interested.

Leyla: Naturally, because they have ovaries, they're still not interested. It only looks that way.

Leyla, you've been on this forum long enough to know that female bodies can have masculine brains.

Your fixation on equating ovaries with unconsciousness doesnt seem rational or significant to me.

I just did a search on dictionary.com for 'feminine'.

1. beauty; feminine dress.
2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness.
3. effeminate;

effeminate: having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
2. characterized by excessive softness, delicacy, self-indulgence, etc.: luxury .

Leyla,

Why don't you read over my latest post addressed to 'you in particular' and respond to that one?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:39 am

Corey wrote:

Sure, but that would have meant that there would have been 'girls clubs' as well. While the boys were off to do their thing, the girls got together to do theirs.

Not necessarily. Many were isolated, cooking and cleaning in houses with children, while men had the opportunity to go out. Please read the thread I started "Were women bright to play dumb?"

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:07 am

SE wrote:

If David does not want others editing their own posts, he can turn off the editing feature.

The editing function is there to allow people to correct any minor mistakes they might have made (spelling, grammer, etc), to clarify what they have written, or, in some cases, to delete or significantly edit the post immediately after they have sent it because of a sudden change of heart. It is not there for people to go back a few days later and disrupt the integrity of the thread by deleting posts that others have already responded to.

Why should this convenient feature, enjoyed by all, be disabled simply because one person cannot check her anxieties and restrain herself from trying to rewrite history all the time?

-