The Nature of Religion

[Dan Rowden]

If David, with a straight face, would say the solution is to kill all the women (doing this actively and not through natural processes), then yes he is a fascist. As it stands, I think he's merely placing value on one idea over another.

I don't think Dave would advocate such a thing, mostly because it wouldn't solve anything. The ideational part of man (and the construct, Woman) is borne of his own psychological needs. If there were to cease to be women, he'd be forced - if his own nature didn't change appreciably - to invent a substitute. In short, he'd create Woman all over again. The only solution is the evolution of consciousness in both genders. The real question is how best to foster that evolution.

[Dan Rowden]

Does he "bother" him/her?

Rebecca at least claims to be female, so "her" is probably justified.

Jesus H. Can we put this crap to rest, please? Rebecca's Youtube Channel

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

You love the fact that he just insulted her?

As a joke it was funny. As an insult, I didn't think it was that bad. Certainly not nearly as bad as being called a fascist.

I think you both should feel embarrassed by your comments.

I don't see a reason for me to be embarrassed. I was called a fascist because I believe the world would be a better place without men in it. Was that such a bad thing to say?

Actually Kevin had done 2 of the videos, so I can't take 100% credit, if credit is even the right word to use.

I thought he had only done one. And I couldn't think of a better word to use than credit. Authorship, maybe?

[rebecca702]

You love the fact that he just insulted her?

As a joke it was funny. As an insult, I didn't think it was that bad. Certainly not nearly as bad as being called a fascist.

"Fascist" = insult to ideology or belief system
"Groupie"= insult to character and intelligence

Take your pick. I'd rather be called a fascist any day.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

You love the fact that he just insulted her?

As a joke it was funny. As an insult, I didn't think it was that bad.

I always call people on that particular insult because it's utterly gratuitous and doesn't arise from anything but the insulter's mindlessness.

Certainly not nearly as bad as being called a fascist.

The difference would be that something was said that could be interpreted as evincing that ideology.

I think you both should feel embarrassed by your comments.

I don't see a reason for me to be embarrassed. I was called a fascist because I believe the world would be a better place without men in it. Was that such a bad thing to say?

I don't think it was bad so much as unworkable. If I thought the world would in fact be better off without males I'd advocate them being phased out too, but it just wouldn't. The truth is that, as things stand, neither gender would cope with the absence of the other. It takes half a second of observation to see that. Also, a world without men would be a world without consciousness, and I'm not about to support that. Mind you, the absence of men might force women into greater levels of consciousness, but that's not a gamble I'd be willing to put my money on.

Actually Kevin had done 2 of the videos, so I can't take 100% credit, if credit is even the right word to use.

I thought he had only done one. And I couldn't think of a better word to use than credit. Authorship, maybe?

I just don't believe in taking "credit" for something I wanted and chose to do. I guess "authorship" works. Kevin did the reincarnation vid and "Blind faith and idiocy". You can sorta tell from the voice :)

[rebecca702]

If David, with a straight face, would say the solution is to kill all the women (doing this actively and not through natural processes), then yes he is a fascist. As it stands, I think he's merely placing value on one idea over another.

I don't think Dave would advocate such a thing, mostly because it wouldn't solve anything. The ideational part of man (and the construct, Woman) is borne of his own psychological needs. If there were to cease to be women, he'd be forced - if his own nature didn't change appreciably - to invent a substitute. In short, he'd create Woman all over again.

I've been finding some interesting stuff in Kierkegaard in regards to this -- such as:

The concept of man corresponds exactly to the idea of man. One therefore can think of a single man existing and nothing more than that. On the other hand, the idea of woman is a generality which is not exhaustively exemplified in any single woman. [...] Whether it be that the gods took a part of him while he slept (fearful of awakening him if they took too much), or that they divided him in equal parts so that woman is a half -- in any case it is man that was divided. So it is only as a subdivision she is related to man as his mate. She is a deception, but that she is only in her second phase and for him who is deceived. She is finiteness, but in her first phase she is finiteness raised to the highest power in the delusive infinity of all divine and human illusions. Not yet is the deception -- but one more instant and a man is deceived. She is finiteness, and so she is a collective term, to say one woman means many women. This the erotic alone understands, and hence he is so prompt to love many, never being decieved, but sucking up all the soluptuous delights the cunning gods were capable of preparing. Therefore woman cannot be exhaustively expressed by any formula but is an infinity of finitudes. He who is bent upon thinking her idea is like one who gazes into a sea of nebulous shapes which are constantly forming or like one who is bewildered by looking at the billows with their foaming crests which constantly elude him; for her idea is only a workshop of possibilities, and for the erotic these possibilities are the never-failing source of enthusiasm.

The only solution is the evolution of consciousness in both genders. The real question is how best to foster that evolution.

Yeah, that's the question alright. As David said it would involve women taking responsibility for the past few thousand years of their psychology, which... seems improbable on any large scale to put in mildly.

[rebecca702]

The real question is how best to foster that evolution.

Do you have an answer for that?

[Dan Rowden]

The only solution is the evolution of consciousness in both genders. The real question is how best to foster that evolution.

Yeah, that's the question alright. As David said it would involve women taking responsibility for the past few thousand years of their psychology, which... seems improbable on any large scale to put in mildly.

And part of the reason it's unlikely is that men themselves wouldn't stand for it. If it were to happen and women were to change as a result, most men would be rather devastated, not just because they were losing their cuddly playthings, but because a whole area of their mind and self-worth (the ideational content of Woman) would be revealed as bullshit; i.e. much of the mind of Man would be revealed as bullshit. That's a bitter pill most men are not yet ready to swallow. Such is the ego.

But, that's a social concern, rather than one for the individual. One of those distractions, really.

[Dan Rowden]

The real question is how best to foster that evolution.

Do you have an answer for that?

The pursuit of personal wisdom is the answer. Other than that, this place, MenoftheInfinite etc is my way of fostering such. It's about as much as one can do. I could ask Benny Hinn to give a shout out for these things, but I kind of doubt he'd go for it.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

I always call people on that particular insult because it's utterly gratuitous and doesn't arise from anything but the insulter's mindlessness.

Just for the sake of the posters and lurkers who read this thread, I want to leave it clear that it was not me who uttered the alleged insult. And to tell you the truth, the part that had me rolling on the floor laughing was where he called you (plural) the holy trinity. Calling Rebecca a groupie was only mildly funny.

The difference would be that something was said that could interpreted as evincing that ideology.

I guess people can always interpret things that way if they want to. I'm not really offended -- I just wanted to make a point, and I did it very successfully.

I don't know if you noticed, but David's reply to my arguments about why the world would be better off without men was purely ad hominem.

[Jamesh]

Or you could've found the one where jamesh proposes the killing of all Muslims
Maybe it would be cheaper to just ask jamesh to restate his claim about killing Muslims. He has never denied it.

I really don’t recall saying that, although I am very anti the Muslim religion as it is today. It is possible I said things that could be inferred that way (by someone like you at least) - I do sometimes exaggerate when frustrated with others.

In fact I abhor the Muslim religion - to me it is the worst religion of all (due to the numbers of followers). The religion itself, I would definitely like to remove from the face of the earth (and all fundie religions with it).

There are many Muslims I would like to be killed (or made powerless in some other fashion), but they are generally the leaders, be they religious of otherwise.

I support Israel over the Middle East, and if that means that Muslims have to be killed as an outcome of their aggressive behaviour, so be it. I believe the Muslim religion is very, very imperialist, and that we have to fight against it, in order to prevent the religion gaining world power down the track.

I do find most Muslims in my country somewhat distasteful - they have a higher propensity to be too emotionally primitive. They have too great a percentage of young men who are arrogant egotistical arsewipes. They are more like folk from past centuries. They just need time away from the crushing constraints of their dominating religion which prevents emotional development.

For this reason I value them less, and do not have the irrational compassion that say Dan has for Palestinians - but I'm not as bad as you think, at the individual level, I still get a bit saddened at the pointless losses families suffer as a result of any conflict. I just have to ignore this because compassion of that nature would just lead to a lengthening of the period and thus the overall pain involved in such conflicts. It is pointless to support a backward looking culture.

Overall though, and being very idealistic, I would much prefer that no-one had to be killed. There are other ways of silencing egotistical idiots (the men who drive others into vengeful actions) than killing them. One first needs rational governments, which no country really has, though some are better than others.

One day you might realise that you are the most feminine minded person here (considering your age, education and experience). I still fail to understand why people respond to you as frequently as they do.

[Jamesh]

Of man there is little here: therefore do their women masculinize themselves. For only he who is man enough, will--save the woman in woman.

Increasingly, technology is providing the feminine comforts that men feel they need. Inventions aim to provide for increased comfort (ease of use, being entertaining, porn everywhere etc), thus "men of imagination" act to provide feminine environments. "Men holding/seeking power" (businessmen, pollies, priests etc) also seek the same.

Such comforts, which are every-which-way-you-turn now in rich/capitalistic societies, also provide for increased populations and force individuals into greater levels of specialisation. All this requires organisation and men become even more feminised by the myriad of herd and task related controls required for such organisation to be effective. For example larger populations require increased levels of conformity, job specialisation results in hierarchical management structures. The environment no longer causes men to suffer enough, particularly when young, so that they experience and learn the art of being masculine.

In being somewhat masculine - using the normal definition, rather than the idealistic QRS version where masculinity is all good - then men create their own demise into femininity. Women, no longer being as important as a source of feminine comfort, fill this gap by learning and using, until it is second nature, the same sort of weak underdeveloped masculinity that most of the male population now have (including myself).

Personally, I'm feminated, I am too accustomed to the comforts to seriously desire nature to force more masculinity to manifest in males (though I'm loving the financial crisis), and I find abhorrent the very idea (for me as a male, anyway) of women being directly and constantly or wholly subservient to others, as women in male dominated worlds were. But the male side of me often notices the Matrix of controls over masculinity nowadays and in its inherent selfishness my ego wishes for more freedom to personally experience the sense of becoming a dominating male force, and for other males to have more opportunity to learn and develop skills from the joys of masculine experience.

As men would still be subservient to other males, women would need to pay the price, they would need to be the femininity that masculinity utilised to provide the experiences. Women are past this now, feminine subservient is mostly not attractive to them, so the rational side of me says this is not feasible and the ethical side says this is a wrongness - the synchronicity between males filling emotionally fulfilled by domination and by women being fulfilled by acceptance of this masculine domination has gone. Unlike David however, I do not think it will ever return, even if something wipes out 99% of the population, the brains of both sexes are now too capable and we individually have too much knowledge of freedom to go back to the previous playing field. America's bible belt makes one wonder though.

[Dan Rowden]

For this reason I value them less, and do not have the irrational compassion that say Dan has for Palestinians

You've never really understood me on this issue. I don't really give a crap about the Palestinians, as such. What concerns me is the extraordinary social injustice waged against them (for no good or sane reason), the extraordinary idiocy of the uncritical support Israel gets in the face of its lies, exaggerations, manipulations and propagandist claptrap, which is in itself more disturbing to me than the stupidity of certain forms for Islamic belief. Basically, Jimbo, my position is against claptrap more than one of compassion for "Palestinians", who are by and large moronic people. The belief in Israeli "virtue" over that of its Arab neighbors is naive and highly selective. If secular Jewry held sway, I'd be more sympathetic, but the truth is it doesn't.

Anyway, let's not set this thread down that path. I just wanted to clarify that point for you.

[Jamesh]

Kierkegaard quote

Whether it be that the gods took a part of him while he slept (fearful of awakening him if they took too much), or that they divided him in equal parts so that woman is a half -- in any case it is man that was divided. So it is only as a subdivision she is related to man as his mate.

What a lot of hogwash. Maleness evolved from a herd situation, most probably back at the bacterial stage of the development of life, when sexual differentiation first occurred. Herd creatures are primarily feminine, however mutations would have caused some simple creatures to be more capable of dominating others in the herd.

She is a deception, but that she is only in her second phase and for him who is deceived. She is finiteness, but in her first phase she is finiteness raised to the highest power in the delusive infinity of all divine and human illusions. Not yet is the deception -- but one more instant and a man is deceived. She is finiteness, and so she is a collective term, to say one woman means many women. This the erotic alone understands, and hence he is so prompt to love many, never being decieved, but sucking up all the soluptuous delights the cunning gods were capable of preparing. Therefore woman cannot be exhaustively expressed by any formula but is an infinity of finitudes. He who is bent upon thinking her idea is like one who gazes into a sea of nebulous shapes which are constantly forming or like one who is bewildered by looking at the billows with their foaming crests which constantly elude him; for her idea is only a workshop of possibilities, and for the erotic these possibilities are the never-failing source of enthusiasm.

Firstly let me say that I have little respect for Kierkegaard (though I've only read quotes).

I have little idea what the above whining means, so lets just take this extract "thinking her idea is like one who gazes into a sea of nebulous shapes which are constantly forming or like one who is bewildered by looking at the billows with their foaming crests which constantly elude him; for her idea is only a workshop of possibilities, and for the erotic these possibilities are the never-failing source of enthusiasm."

True enough. Femininity provides for the relative formlessness upon which masculinity can manifest. You simply cannot have masculinity manifest without it having something to act upon, something to manipulate. Masculinity is definitely the edifice, the sharp spike of humanity, the cock plunged into the larger pliable feminine herd mindset.

Masculinity is like the finiteness of science (definitions, limitations, calculations) compared to the feminine infiniteness of religion (vague cloudy ungraspable concepts). Masculinity is assuredly more finite than femininity. Masculinity defines segments of the totality for the purpose of using reality, but in doing so it becomes limited and single focused - but at least compared to femininity it does have focus.

For me there is enough masculinity in individual women nowadays to pretty much ignore the differences in the sexes. "Woman" these days just represents the herd itself, rather than women per sec.

[Shahrazad]

Jimbo says,

One day you might realise that you are the most feminine minded person here (considering your age, education and experience).

Going by the results of a femininity and masculinity online test that both you and I took years ago, you are decidedly more feminine-minded than I am. This means that as long as you're still around, I will never be the most feminine-minded person here.

All this I tell you only to embarrass you in public, because you already knew it was true.

-

[mansman]

What i find unbelieveable, no, incomprehensible is, when one side believes it is to their advantage to beat the shit out of others, moreso random others, that somehow this might bring eventually bring an end to the problem, that it may in some miraculous way cause the beat up souls to think "oh shit, they just killed 10 of us for 1 of them and its always this way, even 3 totally innocent men lost their sons and wives me included, shit lets all arrive at the following conclusion together- we must altogether refrain from violence no more revenge no not even for my whole family not even though we are now as well all alone and homeless, we the weaker side will be THE ONES to show restraint and let our powerful enemies do the last kiling, even for several more months if necessary, they can randomly invade and kill but we no we must completely become like obedient sheep, better to live like fools and under restriction by masters surrounding us than to die honorably under resistance, yes no matter that reason dictates that the more powerful and advantaged side should show restraint and compassion, no we'l be the ones us pitiful beaten souls, we'll be the ones to show compassion on their few hurt and lost, not them doing so toward or many hurt and lost, yes now we've figured it out, the key to peace, finally- hooraah!"

I mean, can the I's be so dense to think violence accomplishes anything?
Perhaps they are indeed dumb enough to think great violence at least doesnt hurt their side any further. I can only hope not!
For goodness sake, people often act alone when exacting revenge, often in secret.
There must be a thousand adolescent P boys at this very moment plotting how they might execute an I or two, preferably a mother or sister as they lost their own.
How counter productive, just plain stupid, unbelieveably stupid.
I have no choice but to believe that there are very many individuals on both sides who have no intention whatsoever to give peace a chance, not at least until they've exacted their fair share of bloodshed.
In such a situation you can attempt to assist any group on either side all you care to-- wont make a bit of difference to the outcome. Too late for all that.

The only hope for peace in this matter of the Is and Ps is if the more powerful cease to behave more powerfully, there is no other beginning possible. Second, expand fairness to all aspects of the relationship, strictly enforced.

(Call me if they ever get that far, then Ill outline the next steps.)
M

[Jamesh]

Shazzie. I just feel I'm masculine enough to admit my femininity. By the way to me there is nothing wrong with femininity - providing there is sufficient masculinity around to overcome its shortcomings. Online tests are unlikely to adequately test masculinity from a philosphical viewpoint. I (or my ego) really just wants to be more masculine in the traditional sense to assist in me solving my and others worldly problems.

but anyway, I'm going to be a bit more mature and try not to make any snide remarks so that I don't have to be involved in any "whose better" bickering with you.

[guest_of_logic]

Rebecca at least claims to be female, so "her" is probably justified.

Jesus H. Can we put this crap to rest, please? Rebecca's Youtube Channel

Hey, personally I had no good reason to doubt her claim, and in fact I believed her. Thanks for the link though - I'll spend some time checking out her vids as opportunity and motivation allow.

[skipair]

Jamesh,

K: Whether it be that the gods took a part of him while he slept (fearful of awakening him if they took too much), or that they divided him in equal parts so that woman is a half -- in any case it is man that was divided. So it is only as a subdivision she is related to man as his mate.

J: What a lot of hogwash. Maleness evolved from a herd situation, most probably back at the bacterial stage of the development of life, when sexual differentiation first occurred. Herd creatures are primarily feminine, however mutations would have caused some simple creatures to be more capable of dominating others in the herd.

I think K is just saying that man is deeper than his isolated pocket of Woman-obsession. At the very least, that the potential is there.

K: She is a deception, but that she is only in her second phase and for him who is deceived. She is finiteness, but in her first phase she is finiteness raised to the highest power in the delusive infinity of all divine and human illusions. Not yet is the deception -- but one more instant and a man is deceived. She is finiteness, and so she is a collective term, to say one woman means many women. This the erotic alone understands, and hence he is so prompt to love many, never being decieved, but sucking up all the soluptuous delights the cunning gods were capable of preparing. Therefore woman cannot be exhaustively expressed by any formula but is an infinity of finitudes. He who is bent upon thinking her idea is like one who gazes into a sea of nebulous shapes which are constantly forming or like one who is bewildered by looking at the billows with their foaming crests which constantly elude him; for her idea is only a workshop of possibilities, and for the erotic these possibilities are the never-failing source of enthusiasm.

K is just talking about the ordinary man's imaginary idea of what a woman is - a finite, isolated pocket to take refuge in, pleasure from. It is a frame floating in space (imaginary and false), and the picture inside takes the form of whatever a woman seems to do.

For me there is enough masculinity in individual women nowadays to pretty much ignore the differences in the sexes.

There is little difference from a perspective that's big and distant enough, but when you zoom in the differences are acute. It's easier to see this when a man knows the above mind-pocket is imaginary, and stops going there.

[rebecca702]

For me there is enough masculinity in individual women nowadays to pretty much ignore the differences in the sexes. "Woman" these days just represents the herd itself, rather than women per sec.

It's true that women have become more able to fend for themselves, becoming more educated and working in a wide variety of fields, making their own decisions, etc. - not as dependent on men. It sounds like that is the outgrowth of masculinity you are talking about - surface level survival skills. I don't think that has much to do with inner masculinity (but of course they are connected) - intellectual/philosophical development, mental reasoning skills, etc. I think that inner masculinity would have to do with women understanding the meaning of masculine and feminine within their own minds - which almost none do.

[rebecca702]

K: She is a deception, but that she is only in her second phase and for him who is deceived. She is finiteness, but in her first phase she is finiteness raised to the highest power in the delusive infinity of all divine and human illusions. Not yet is the deception -- but one more instant and a man is deceived. She is finiteness, and so she is a collective term, to say one woman means many women. This the erotic alone understands, and hence he is so prompt to love many, never being decieved, but sucking up all the soluptuous delights the cunning gods were capable of preparing. Therefore woman cannot be exhaustively expressed by any formula but is an infinity of finitudes. He who is bent upon thinking her idea is like one who gazes into a sea of nebulous shapes which are constantly forming or like one who is bewildered by looking at the billows with their foaming crests which constantly elude him; for her idea is only a workshop of possibilities, and for the erotic these possibilities are the never-failing source of enthusiasm.

K is just talking about the ordinary man's imaginary idea of what a woman is - a finite, isolated pocket to take refuge in, pleasure from. It is a frame floating in space (imaginary and false), and the picture inside takes the form of whatever a woman seems to do.

Right, and the man thinks there is actually something of substance there. Like in the old stories, some purity that might redeem him... or the ancient secrets of Eve... I just read the story by Oscar Wilde, "The Sphinx Without a Secret" which basically talks about this. Men and women love to play like there's a mystery, a hidden treasure... if men found out there was no secret - gasp!

Then they could create fem-bots and be perfectly happy. But they won't do that.

[Shahrazad]

Jamesh,

By the way to me there is nothing wrong with femininity - providing there is sufficient masculinity around to overcome its shortcomings.

Yet you love to insult me by calling me feminine-minded. You must be obsessed with the concept, or with me, either one.

Online tests are unlikely to adequately test masculinity from a philosphical viewpoint.

At the time you seemed to agree with the results.

but anyway, I'm going to be a bit more mature and try not to make any snide remarks so that I don't have to be involved in any "whose better" bickering with you.

You might want to do that, because if you keep making snide remarks, I'm going to assume that you want me to respond in kind.

I still fail to understand why people respond to you as frequently as they do.

Sweetie, nobody here pays me as much attention as you do.

[Tomas]

.


-Shahrazad-
What did I start? The video channel was Dan's idea, and he's done 100% of the work. He deserves full credit.

-tomas-
Sorry about the implication, it was more about you "admiring" Dan a few months ago and you receiving flak from a few of the list flakes. The usual gossip mill rumor-mongering prevalent on forums such as these (and my incessant harping aside).


-Shahrazad-
I was thinking about you, Tomas. I was hoping you'd stop by so I can talk you into doing some searches. Can you get me the thread where David suggests a society where the unenlightened elderly are killed? I'll get you free tickets to Dan's next video concert, uhmmm, show.

-tomas-
A cursory search using the keyword "elderly" was (maybe) found in 'Who Wants To Kill the Elderly'... Whether he edited any comments regarding his comments is Unknown.

PS - More later

[Ignius]

Tomas,

Have you ever killed anyone?

[David Quinn]

You could not find the one where David proposes a society where all people over a certain age (was it 60?) get killed unless they can prove they have reached enlightenment?

You mean the one which he later claimed was in jest? I can't find the original post, and I think that it was before my time anyhow. Can you find it?.

Perhaps a different, more amusing test should be conducted. If a person hasn't attained enlightenment by the time they are 60, they will be given 10 million dollars, a mansion, free medical care and unfettered access to all available pleasures. Those who are enlightened will be given a small hut with the bare necessities and nothing more.

-