The Problem With Women Today

[BMcGilly07]

I'm sorry, but can someone just ban Alex already? He's taken a forum about Genius and Enlightenment and twisted it into a repository for his daily ego-maniacal mental masturbation.

His is a kind of madness that will not be cured, "there is no cure for willful ignorance." He is in polar opposition to everything this forum stands for, and once his pointless views have been exposed for what they are he ought to go. This will have to be in the form of a ban because he thinks he's here on a mission from God to save everyone.

He really is worthless, beyond being an example of what not to be like.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

St. Anthony the Great, after hearing the prayer of the satyr, stroke the ground with his staff, exclaiming:

• • • Woe to thee, Alexandria! Beasts speak of Christ, but you, instead of God, worship monsters!

[brokenhead]

Deontology and consequentialism are both too limited to base decisions off of, and decisions are a stupid waste of time that make inaccurate metaphysical assumptions in the first place. Argument over?

(This is the first and last time I'm posting drunk.)

Really, Trev, the first time? Swear to God?

I confess I had to look up deontology. I was wondering what teeth had to do with decision making.

[brokenhead]

I'm sorry, but can someone just ban Alex already? He's taken a forum about Genius and Enlightenment and twisted it into a repository for his daily ego-maniacal mental masturbation.

His is a kind of madness that will not be cured, "there is no cure for willful ignorance." He is in polar opposition to everything this forum stands for, and once his pointless views have been exposed for what they are he ought to go. This will have to be in the form of a ban because he thinks he's here on a mission from God to save everyone.

He really is worthless, beyond being an example of what not to be like.

Well, I heartily disagree with this. No one is forcing you to read Alex's posts, and some of us quite enjoy them. His views might differ from yours, but I would hardly call them pointless.

[David Quinn]

There is no thought of banning him on my part, even though a number of people have written to me and questioned his presence here. I have even lept to his defence, which may surprise him.

He brings value to the forum in that he offers contrary views and stimulates debate, even though a lot of this is dissipated because of his affliction with banality-tourette syndrome. He doesn't try to dominate the forum and drag it down into a rut, as was the case with several past posters.

Alex's time to leave has not yet come. Being here is his Purgatory and the gods have decreed that he still has many more sins to absolve.

-

[Tomas]

.


I'd like to see Alex go one-on-one with Diebert in The Crucible...

[Shahrazad]

broken,

No one is forcing you to read Alex's posts, and some of us quite enjoy them.

Who could possibly like Alex and his lengthy blogs? I want names.

[BMcGilly07]

Fair enough, apologies for the threadjack.

[Rhett]

It comes down to who wants the other more. I'd say in 99% of the cases the man wants his particular woman more than that woman wants her particular man - especially over time. In this sense we can say women are the chosers.

Women want men a lot, including a particular man at times, but there are factors that make comparisons between theirs and mens wanting complex. For example, men are more conscious and therefore more capable and more likely to focus on a goal and be consistent about it, whether that be a woman or anything else. Another factor is there is a strong cultural tendency for men to initiate the moment of coming together (only he knows for sure if she will erect his penis sufficiently). This means women need to be more open to a variety of guys, while men can focus on one, and if that doesn't work another, and so on, in a serial manner.

[Rhett]

Rhett,
You too can “come up with all sorts of imaginary scenarios”, which is the point Prince makes in his post. Prince – GF’s self-appointed Court Jester – though not always on target when slinging his arrows, has this time landed very close. For one thing, he’s rightly pegged your behavior as “creepy”:

Rhett: As for the young girls, one experiment i experienced recently is i looked at a girl from a distance a few times at a supermarket i frequent on one day,

But maybe for Rhett – a man who considers himself to be “not a usual person” – hanging around the local supermarket, checking out young women, may be just a normal day.

You're imagining things Sue. In the example i mentioned i was waiting for my goods to be checked-through. I take opportunities to observe behaviours as any philosopher should. I don't "hang around" supermarkets, as you falsely accuse.

You can’t blame Prince for jumping all over you. You left yourself wide open. Perhaps if you took yourself and this forum more seriously, you’d not be filling up threads with your boastful gossip. But obviously you don’t take either seriously. You can’t even bring yourself to type a capital ‘I’ when referring to yourself.

Prince has made false accusations and i have responded. At times i use personal experiences as examples, as any good philosopher should.

I have never capitalised "i". There was a time when i didn't do it because of the symbolism of the eradication of the ego, making it ever smaller.

[Rhett]

I'm talking about the philosophical ideal of Woman, something biological women, along with men, have also accepted. Women become it, men worship it.

It's interesting isn't it that there are so many misunderstandings about women, yet men are mostly seen for what they are. Everyone knows that men are sex driven providers, with some intelligence, leadership, individualism, creative, physical and emotional strengths, etc, compared to women. There's no confusion about these characteristics of men.

[Rhett]

Women value men like men value shovels or some other kind of tool. She uses him to get kids, a house, status, etc, it's not very complicated. Man's value of Woman is much more complex. He subconsciously forms an ideal of her and surrenders himself to it, worshiping it to gain it's acceptance through women who embody it. Without it he is left out in the cold desert of his own thoughts where he often perishes.

Evolutionary forces just had to come up with some way to get men to work themselves to the bone for women for little in return. That it came up with the wildly erroneous views of women that appear in men's minds, is just amazing.

[Rhett]

Nick: So a couple of heffers get left in the dust, big deal.


Not just the fat ones get left there. There's also the shy ones, the smart but spacey ones, those with physical defects, the ugly ones, the old ones, the masculine ones, and on and on and on. Perhaps only the ones that look like models have rows of men chasing them. And even they will only have those rows while they are quite young.

I've got news for you: less than 3% of women look like models.

Funny isn't it that all these women are quietly pining for a man, waiting for one to make a move on her, placing herself in his midst, while so many men are seeing them as passive and thinking they aren't really interested and that they have to fight to get one, against her wishes.

[Alex Jacob]

I am a beast, and I speak of Christ, the Annointed of God: So Be It!
________________________________________________________________

Diebert, yes, I guess you are right: What I do here is quite comparable to the life-long work of St Anthony, though, in my humility, I would never have come out and stated it so obviously.

Imagine if you will a pyramid on which a rosey sunset light shines. And see that Pyramid against a background of dark grey-blue sky, clouded, somber and threatening rain. And see flying in the foreground a wonderous, rainbow-colored Macaw whose ca-ca-ca-cophany turns to golden intelligence-units and rains down upon the world; a balm to the wounded and hurting, whose message is 'Salvation is the sweet Hosanna! for those who wander lost upon the Roads!'

Anthony, like poor Alex, was plagued by numerous demons, as I am plagued by the demons of Wisconcin, Detroit, Panama City and Melbourne, and like Anthony I say: "If any of you have any authority over me, only one would have been sufficient to fight me." It seems it is my Destiny to have dominion over demons and each day I gain more strength. (I'm sorry if I sound like that lunatic narcissistic freak-show from Eugene, it is not intentional).

I asked a demon; "Who are you!?" and it shouted back: "I am a corpse, one of those whom the heathen calls satyrs, and by them were snared into idolatry".

There are many levels of meaning here, and over the course of the time (years, decades!---thanks David! ·grovels on ground and slobbers on feet·) that remains to me there will be ample opportunity to reveal all the details. But: Who truly lives? My 'lema' is 'muero porque no muero', which is also laden---I almost said 'littered'---with multiple layers of meaning (don't bother, Shah, you'll get head-ache!) that it makes me want to jump out of my skin and rise up to Heaven!

I am dying because I won't die.

Santa Teresa de Avila said that. Nietzsche really went to the center of it. Alex also goes in to the cave, is infected, dies, is reborn, and gloms onto your nose trying to wake you up. If your nose hurts, am I truly to blame?

A story:

"One time Saint Anthony tried hiding in a cave to escape the demons that plagued him. There were so many little demons in the cave though that Saint Anthony's servant had to carry him out because they had beaten him to death. When the hermits were gathered to Saint Anthony's corpse to mourn his death, Saint Anthony was revived. He demanded that his servants take him back to that cave where the demons had beaten him. When he got there he called out to the demons, and they came back as wild beasts to rip him to shreds. All of a sudden a bright light flashed, and the demons ran away. Saint Anthony knew that the light must have come from God, and he asked God where was He before when the demons attacked him. God replied, "I was here but I would see and abide to see thy battle, and because thou hast manly fought and well maintained thy battle, I shall make thy name to be spread through all the world".

I came to Genius Forum to 'hide in a cave' to escape from the demons that plagued me (snakes more than anything...). I thought God was being cruel to me that in trying to escape my demons I'd only find a whole nest of other demons: bothersome, irksome, snotty, snide, pretentious, ill-educated adolescent demons who I have had to battle and slaughter and liberate, each in its turn! If God would have allowed it, BMcGilly07 would have had his way with me: dismembering me, mutilating me, performing his favorite scene from Deliverance on me, and casting me out into the darkness! But this was not to be. I walk in the Light of God and no one of you can do me harm! Angels come to my defense! (Thanks again David!)(And BTW 'David' means 'beloved'. Here are the variants: Daffy, Daffyd, Dafydd, Dai, Dave, Davey, Davi, Davidde, Davide, Davidson, Davie, Daviel, Davies, Davin, Davis, Daven, Davon, Davy, Davyd, Davydd and Davyn.)

[Alex Jacob]

Rebecca, you make a decent point; in the end Big Nurse came undone. I only suggest that when we encounter that sort of madness (as for example, and far more to the point, among the 'demons' who come forward to attack what only wants to liberate them, like in my case) we know it because it is quiet, calm, professional, ordered, 'rational' madness, that feigns humor but is incapable of it (humor can take down a dictatorship after all), but that secretly plans Orwellian horrors.

What do you think of a comparison between Big Nurse and O'Brien (of 1984)?

Weren't you going to send me a photo or something? (Would you object to something from me in your in-box?)

PS: (You perv, Jason! That was NOT a double-entendre! I would only like to offer Rebecca a version of the Crucified Macaw, one of my favorite Byzantine classics).

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Really, Trev, the first time? Swear to God?

It's just as much my first time as it will be my last time. Furthermore, I swear to God that whatever the truth is, everyone will figure it out regardless of how consistently I lie. I'm either really good at telling the truth, or really bad at lying.

I'd like to see Alex go one-on-one with Diebert in The Crucible...

I second this. I'd also settle for Alex on the Reasoning Show, if only because I'm curious to hear the tone of voice he uses.

[brokenhead]

I second this. I'd also settle for Alex on the Reasoning Show, if only because I'm curious to hear the tone of voice he uses.

Reasoning Show, nothing. I'd like to see Alex on the Letterman show. He could do a "stupid human trick" and Weisenheimer could do a "stupid pet trick." Oy gevalt.

[Carmel]

I hope Alex doesn't leave here. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with his perspectives, but his presence here helps prevent stagnation and "group think" from becoming even more pervasive than it already is. Dissent should be welcomed, otherwise, you may as well change the group's name to the "The Cult of Genius Forums".

(Uh oh...Who will be my nemesis? hehe)

[Tomas]

.


-tomas earlier-
I'd like to see Alex go one-on-one with Diebert in The Crucible...


-Trevor-
I second this.

-tomas now-
Have the five judges in mind:

Greg Shantz
Elizabeth Isabelle
Steven Coyle
Katy (from Georgia) http://littlekatydid.livejournal.com
Victor Danilchenko

This would go until about August 15, 2009


PS - The reason for Katy is that she is thinking about accepting Jesus as her #1 (note: blog entry on April Fools Day). Plus, Alex & Diebert tend to be able to take a step back in their surmisal of the long-haired freak of Nature's Own ('god-king' Jesus H. Christ) And Katy's about to get married to Kevin. Visit her blog for details...

[Shahrazad]

Tomas, what do those 5 bloggers have in common? That they are not yesmen?

[Rhett]

Why would you want to be associated with such a sick mindset?

I'm "associating" myself with the knowledge that these behavioral patterns exist, whether they seem sick or otherwise.

Skipair,

People suffer, and that suffering drives them to pursue what they believe will mitigate their suffering. In the absence of wisdom, the results will be at best limited, and often at the expense of consciousness.

People typically seek to mitigate their suffering by having sex, finding a mate, getting married, amassing materials, having children, mixing with family, etc. These are societal norms of behaviour, but they are not a real solution, and thus in the long run leave people run down. Women in particular lack the mental capacity to venture outside of these societal norms, though men aren't far behind. People's plight is unfortunate to watch.

Knowing this, your ongoing bedding of women casts you in a bad light, both with respect to your treatment of yourself and of women. Maybe you suffer so much you use this as an excuse to not care, to push the future into the too hard basket. Maybe you hate women and yourself. Maybe in weakness you accept suffering. Maybe you lack the idealism and courage to beat a path beyond it.

You know that even if your actions do not cause immediate suffering, they will in the overall scheme of things have that effect. For as long as you are pursuing and promoting unwise agenda's, for as long as you aren't 100% pursuing a wise agenda, you are causing unfortunate effects to yourself and others.

How much more learning can you justify? Are you really confronting and overcoming fears that will be of benefit to a wise agenda? Will your lust for women run out, or become part of your fabric? The stakes are high. The sooner good habits are formed and reinforced, the better, generally speaking.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am a beast, and I speak of Christ, the Annointed of God: So Be It!

It should have been obvious that the satyr, beast or daemon was not the one being addressed as 'Alexandria'. So much for your literacy!

I'd like to see Alex go one-on-one with Diebert in The Crucible...

Perhaps when we could agree on a tweet format: 140 characters max and at most one per day. It would be a Herculean effort for A.J!

Then again, I've had a few extensive one-on-ones already with him at this forum (here a few pages long). What could be possibly new to add, it's all there already. Actually it's interesting to observe the same stuff keeps being rehashed endlessly, people even asking for more of the same now!

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert, just to defend my own ego, I added that little bit as an after-thought and saw that it broke the continuity of my spoof on St Anthony (that you provided me with). I knew you'd snag me on it.
________________________________________________

I have been reading 'Letters to a young novelist' (Cartas a un joven novelista) by Mario Vargas Llosa, which I recommend to everyone interested in literature, narratives, discourses, essays---any expression about what we think about life and the way that we express it in our communication with others. It is very, very revealing and very relevant. In the book he reveals his grasp of the novel and explains all the different parts of the novel: the different sorts of narrators possiible, the different manners of revealing the narrative material, the differences between the use of I-you-he as a narrative stance, the way that narratives are constructed, the stuff that you don't really consider when you read and assimilate.

It is beyond doubt one of the most impressive books on the subject of narration and fiction, and I think one would have to state, right at the start, that even if we undertake to 'tell the truth' and describe the 'facts' about our life, this life, or Life (as is done by QRS, in their odd way, on this forum: the revelation of Absolute Truths and the Absolute Certainty with which It is revealed), in order to engage in this we 'invent' a narrator, the 'I' who is speaking and we use him to tell our tale.

From the very start---this is pure common sense but it is surely not obvious to everyone who writes here---the 'person' who writes is 'composed' only of words, and these words are not the person. In the guise of an almost political commitment to 'truth' one is employing ficticious means! One HAS to take into consideration a few different things: the narrator you read, this ficticious person, is NOT telling you the truth about themselves. And I hold up as Exhibit Number One our fine friend Diebert van R! Diebert offers a very, very limited view of himself---this ficticious narrator that expounds in such a balanced way, this admirable 'team player', this patient upstanding Dutch Yogi, this Nietschean a la Hollandaise. That is all well and good, of course, but it is clearly a fiction. It is 'image management'. It is selecting certain things he is willing to put forward but holding back vast territories of who Diebert really is, and by extension, who all of us are.

Diebert is just an example among many, and by that I mean every single person who writes here! This Wise Sage get-up is just that: a get-up, a costume, a narrative device, a certain ground that is laid out and on which a kind of theatre takes place. Even if it is the most 'sincere' and 'meaningful' theatre (and, regrettably, it is NOT!, it is still theatre. There is a tremendous amount of lying and posturing that goes on here and you (yes, you! belovèd reader) are an idiot if you don't recognize this.

When you have a chance to 'peek behind the curtain'---like in the Wizard of Oz---you see that this fabled narrator is not exactly what he made himself out to be. He was a concoction, even to himself, that was representing some goods that were being purveyed, sold if you will. Now here's the strange thing, the disconcerting thing: this is pretty much what is happening with us (or to us) in all the different fields of life, with all the different people we deal with, even the most loved and trusted, even Guru. That does not mean that 'all is false', it means something even more disconcerting: that we can't take appearances as 'truths', and that we and we alone are responsible to come to conclusions as to what is 'true', in what way it is true, and overall what these 'truths' mean to us in the context of life lived.

I refer to a Nietzschean 'life'. Wasn't it the case that he wanted (or needed desperately) to cut through the fictions that 'fools' had set up around the truth(s) of Life, and he wanted to strip away the veils and the lies, so that he could see and live life? I am not defining what is 'living life', it is really more a question for me (what does it mean to have life and to live life, to be alive and to be conscious?) There is a grand posturing here that this is done, but it really ISN'T done, it is postured.

And you think that this is not relevant? (These observations). You think that because I deliberately look at 'you' and listen to 'you' (the great plurality of you who write here), and costume myself in 'you' and portray you TO YOU, that this is not revealing something relevant? Half of you (I am not singling you out Shah) hardly seem to have the mental equipment to even grasp the basic concepts, and you that remain? Really, what do YOU contribute here? You think that if you Quack the Canon that that is something revolutionary? That you are changing the fucking world?!
_______________________________________

Now, I am going to gnaw on a pecan and try to calm down. Don't bother me for awhile, okay? (It is not easy being the Top Sage...)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's all lying and posturing, Alex. Most here realize that. But only three letters are needed really: ego. Funny thing is that whenever one acts from it, one keeps seeing it. Still better than not noticing at all.

[Alex Jacob]

That is what I meant by 'Quacking the Canon'.