the word genius is stupid.

[Lennyrizzo]

ROTFL!
Good one, freak.

[Pye]

Reminds me of a moment on break from seminar this weekend, standing around with two (late-20s male) students and one (53-year-old male) teacher, discussing revolution-era novels we all enjoyed reading (Dostoevsky, Stendhal, etc.). I brought up Balzac, and the whole company dissolved into sophomoric giggling . . . . (regarding "balls" and regarding "sacs," etc.) . . . .


.

[Rhett]

.

Rhett writes:

Try as they do, but i do not find them desirable, and nor, in my opinion, should they desire being themselves. [emphasis mine]

I'll extract my original meaning from this: The wholesale defining of one's (in this case "women's") value -- strictly in the desires of another (in this case men's) -- is a doomed proposition for any human being.

I agree, except in the case where someone is trialling a new value system, one that places truth and wisdom uppermost, that is held and exemplified by another who desires if for them. In such a case it may well save them from doom.

If this is the only kind of being-of-themselves you see possible for human women, then I am even less interested in perpetuating this kind of being for women as well. And in the main, this kind of thinking dooms us to willful ignorance, for all, for both.

I place an immutable cap on the development of women. They have no scope for a future of freedom. That would be a complete contradiction of their nature. I do not, however, place such a cap on the development of females. Only when they fail to rise beyond womanliness (and begin a path of truth) do i see nothing but doom for them.

Your receded desire is a good start. Your underestimation is the spoon of willful ignorance still tending to this poisonous pot.

You've placed foolish words in my mouth, and then dropped me to your level. You've slipped Pye.

.

[Jamesh]

In such a case it may well save them from doom.

An appeal to spiritual fantasy. Nothing will ever save any being from doom. Outside of imagination - Nothing is spiritual .

I place an immutable cap on the development of women. They have no scope for a future of freedom.

A world where both men and women are feminine, provides the opportunity for true masculinity. Don't get caught up in the hero type masculinity of the past. Masculinity will always be the exception.

[Pye]

Rhett writes:

You've placed foolish words in my mouth, and then dropped me to your level. You've slipped Pye.

Acknowledged and agreed.

Until you make these (new-to-me) distinctions between "woman" and "female," I do not know how you are using them.

And I will support again and again the notion of exponential difficulty for females (I'm fine with this word; I'll join in). Since both males and females are in essence working on a project of the body (biology) in dealing with their respective desires, the situation is particularly acute regarding birth-cravings, repetitive manifest cycles, and possibly even physical protection that females might not [believe they] possess.

[kjones]

Since both males and females are in essence working on a project of the body (biology) in dealing with their respective desires, the situation is particularly acute regarding birth-cravings, repetitive manifest cycles, and possibly even physical protection that females might not [believe they] possess.

Are you saying overcoming delusion is more difficult for females than males, generally, or that it is more difficult now for both, irrespective of their sex?

[Pye]

kjones writes:

Are you saying overcoming delusion is more difficult for females than males, generally, or that it is more difficult now for both, irrespective of their sex?

Hello Kelly. Would you clarify for me this "now" that you mean? Is it in reference to the so-called increasingly "feminized" culture that is mentioned hereabouts? Of course it is not in reference to a cultural change in the sexual organs of experience.

[Rhett]

.

Until you make these (new-to-me) distinctions between "woman" and "female," I do not know how you are using them.

Okay.

Since both males and females are in essence working on a project of the body (biology) in dealing with their respective desires, the situation is particularly acute regarding birth-cravings, repetitive manifest cycles, and possibly even physical protection that females might not [believe they] possess.

Only through going beyond the attachment to body can the desires and cravings, and the cripplings they cause, be resolved and ceased. Any project that doesn't work on understanding the nature of reality - the nature of thingness and causality, and isness, can only at best place band-aids on recurring sores.

.

[Pye]

Rhett writes:

Only through going beyond the attachment to body can the desires and cravings, and the cripplings they cause, be resolved and ceased.

This "going beyond" is still in address to the body. The mind is the mouth of the body; an organ within. It will always be speaking for it. Working on it might simply mean, giving it [mind] different things to say back to it [body], but,

better, there's no separation at all.

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: Only through going beyond the attachment to body can the desires and cravings, and the cripplings they cause, be resolved and ceased.

Pye: This "going beyond" is still in address to the body. The mind is the mouth of the body; an organ within. It will always be speaking for it.

What you elucidate is the standard, faulty perspective.

If the mind were within the body, the body could not be within the mind.

.

[Pye]

Rhett writes:

If the mind were within the body, the body could not be within the mind.

Oh, but it can. And it is. "Within" marks the movement toward understanding their lack of separation altogether; their joint speech.

I shouldn't even be using the plural "their."


.

[kjones]

And I will support again and again the notion of exponential difficulty for females (I'm fine with this word; I'll join in). Since both males and females are in essence working on a project of the body (biology) in dealing with their respective desires, the situation is particularly acute regarding birth-cravings, repetitive manifest cycles, and possibly even physical protection that females might not [believe they] possess.

Are you saying overcoming delusion is more difficult for females than males, generally, or that it is more difficult now for both, irrespective of their sex?

Would you clarify for me this "now" that you mean? Is it in reference to the so-called increasingly "feminized" culture that is mentioned hereabouts? Of course it is not in reference to a cultural change in the sexual organs of experience.

Enlightenment is next to impossible for females, generally, meaning always, compared to males. I take it you agree with this.

What is a not-feminised culture, and how are you creating it?


Kelly

[Pye]

Kelly writes:

Enlightenment is next to impossible for females, generally, meaning always, compared to males. I take it you agree with this.

This thought doesn't sound like it wants budged, so I doubt I can do it for you. "Next-to-impossible" is not impossible.

K: What is a not-feminised culture, and how are you creating it?

Here is a different perspective: What I see when I look at the history of culture is a history of arrested male adolescence that surrounds itself around sexual access to women (at that point of high-appetite). Laws, customs, mores, reproductive units (family), entertainment, et al -- all of it so constructed, embedded, reified, and sustained as to make this original movement nearly unidentifyable (even if it is patently clear).

What is its genealogy?

- greater, original male physical strength
- greater original male sexual appetite (thus human development in general arrested in this state)
- greater (and sooner) development and use of reason, directly sourced in the greater exercise of this original physical vitality

This so-called "feminized" culture is simply another form of address to the continued and reified systems of sexual access to women. This is all that any "women's movement" from the 19th century forward can claim to have "accomplished" (and I mean those quote marks for every attitude they're worth). If women have been assumed to have "steered" things to "their" tastes, they have only been able to do so from this darkness.

(I have to hit the road again; maybe back sometime next week.)

[sue hindmarsh]

Rhett Hamilton wrote:

I place an immutable cap on the development of women. They have no scope for a future of freedom. That would be a complete contradiction of their nature. I do not, however, place such a cap on the development of females. Only when they fail to rise beyond womanliness (and begin a path of truth) do i see nothing but doom for them.

Yes, there is a slight chance that a female may become a true Philosopher, but that chance becomes less and less available in a world of womanly men. As society now openly embraces the unconscious, any attempt by female, or male to escape from this hell, often ends in failure.

Masculinity is needed to stem this flow over to the feminine, but it is so worn out from being constantly used to fulfill feminine whims, that it hasn’t the life left in it to fight.

Thankfully, there are a few men left that haven’t devoted their lives to woman – so it falls to them to keep masculinity alive long enough, until men rise to reclaim it.

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Jamesh wrote:

A world where both men and women are feminine, provides the opportunity for true masculinity.

Can you flesh that thought out a bit, Jamesh? As it stands, it’s meaningless.

Don't get caught up in the hero type masculinity of the past.

Yes, generally speaking, the men of the past were no different to today’s men. Some might have spoken about, and lived their lives according to higher ideals, but at base, most of those ideals sprung from, and were directed towards the feminine – which explains why we have such an abundance of womanish men filling up today’s society.

Masculinity will always be the exception.

The “exception”, to what?

Sue

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: If the mind were within the body, the body could not be within the mind.

Pye: Oh, but it can. And it is. "Within" marks the movement toward understanding their lack of separation altogether; their joint speech.

Since the body appears, it is necessarily within the mind. We can say this without doubt.

Speaking as if the contrary is the case is the opposite of facilitating understanding.

.

[hsandman]

.

Speaking as if the contrary is the case is the opposite of facilitating understanding.

.

Funny :)

Are you guys arguing over semantics and calling each other liars? Ooh, the tension! :)

[ken]

genius is the integration of mind / body / spirit / soul