Jed

[Dan Rowden]

I'm just saying what are bad ideas and what aren't.

This is all well and good, but anyone can post quotes and say they contain bad ideas. It doesn't mean a thing without a demonstration of why they are bad/false.

[1otherS]

Weininger conveniently calling every bad 'type' womanly will always look strange to me.

Why? Don't you understand why he did so? Think of it terms of unconsciousness and the fact that all bad things arise out of a lack of consciousnesses. If you see it in this context, it should become clear.

I can live with him calling the shots on what unconsciousness is. Is it just a coincidence he called it 'womanliness' and Jewishness', though?. Is it just a coincidence the biggest social darwinist in history paid his compliments to Weininger?

Is ethical behaviour thrashing the psychology of the woman you had a child with, ending the relationship, then plant lies into her head opposite to her own best interests? David is hysteric for doing this, Sue for actually following it.

Are you really going to claim all this is just gossip or are you going to admit you're not a thinker at all:
You and your clique just base your entire position upon childhood-spite or just experienced abuse.

[1otherS]

Conclusion: if you think you're right, but become the laughing-stock of Ne Plus Ultra-members who have REAL degrees in philosophy, hard science, history...yet still feel you got the upperhand...you are living divorced from reality and your views have no merit.

Can you name all the logical fallacies you committed in that paragraph?

1otherS
I'm demonstrating the way of your thought everytime you write.

[Dan Rowden]

Weininger conveniently calling every bad 'type' womanly will always look strange to me.

Why? Don't you understand why he did so? Think of it terms of unconsciousness and the fact that all bad things arise out of a lack of consciousnesses. If you see it in this context, it should become clear.

I can live with him calling the shots on what unconsciousness is. Is it just a coincidence he called it 'womanliness' and Jewishness', though?.

Woman and Jew aren't exactly the same type. But it's true he could have used a different lexicon, as could I on such matters. But I suspect he used the terms he did so as to give the ideas real world relevance, to personalise them. The feminine, and unconsciousness, abides most perfectly in real world women, so the correlation makes sense to me. That some people read what they want into philosophical ideas has been a problem for all philosophies.

Is it just a coincidence the biggest social darwinist in history paid his compliments to Weininger?

I don't think it matters one bit. Does it reflect on Nietzsche and his ideas that his anti-Semite, moron sister sucked up to the Nazis and was mostly responsible for them aligning themselves with certain of his ideas?

Is ethical behaviour thrashing the psychology of the woman you had a child with, ending the relationship, then plant lies into her head opposite to her own best interests?

What? Firstly, Sue agrees with the ideas and always has done. Secondly, how do you know who ended the relationship? Thirdly, is your thinking always this shallow, petty and conventional?

David is hysteric for doing this, Sue for actually following it.

Condescension, patronisation, and not even a whiff of an argument. That is appearing more and more to be your stock in trade.

Are you really going to claim all this is just gossip or are you going to admit you're not a thinker at all: you and your clique just base your entire position upon childhood-spite or just experienced abuse.

Oh, now that was predictable. It took you a while, though. Yeah, we were all deeply abused as kids. It's completely fucked us up and distorted out minds. Our fathers made our mothers beat us with dried kippers and rape us with barbed wire. What can you expect?

Pity, you seemed passably sensible at the start.

[Dan Rowden]

Conclusion: if you think you're right, but become the laughing-stock of Ne Plus Ultra-members who have REAL degrees in philosophy, hard science, history...yet still feel you got the upperhand...you are living divorced from reality and your views have no merit.

Can you name all the logical fallacies you committed in that paragraph?

1otherS
I'm demonstrating the way of your thought everytime you write.

I'll take that as a no.

[rebecca702]

[I am assuming you've seen the movie in question. So what do you think?

I think you'd get a lot from reading and understanding Nietzsche's conception of the ubermensch.

I am looking into that. Thanks.

Is there a particular reason why you recommend that for me?

[rebecca702]

Hmm. Well, that can be interpreted many ways. In the actual story, I think the reason is that he's dealing with some hugely emotional regret due to something about his long-lost daughter, which is never made very clear. It seems he's been tortured for many years by his emotions (going to mass every single day, etc) - and I suppose having close contact with women brings it all back. [...]

I am assuming you've seen the movie in question. So what do you think?

Yes, I have seen it. The part of your post I left here is the one that is, in my view, the best interpretation. In short, his attitude is one of protection of women. Given that, I think its metaphorical usefulness for the philosophical quest is limited. Not engaging feminine types in philosophical discussion, for example, is not about protecting them from harm as much as it's about not wasting valuable time and energy.

Truth is, a really feminine person cannot be harmed by philosophy at all, anymore than if you swear at a person in a language they can't understand.

Okay, I'm seeing how his motives were pretty much stemming more from his fears than anything else. He failed at protecting the Morgan Freeman character from getting socked how many decades ago, and men have an aversion to seeing women hurt for some reason (misplaced responsibility?), more so than for men.

I guess the reason I thought it might have been a good metaphor was because of the way he said he wouldn't train women, and then proceeded to train her. It reminded me of the Gospel of Thomas line again, "You must make the female male". Maybe I'm archetype-hunting in the jungle... anyway thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm. Well, that can be interpreted many ways. In the actual story, I think the reason is that he's dealing with some hugely emotional regret due to something about his long-lost daughter, which is never made very clear. It seems he's been tortured for many years by his emotions (going to mass every single day, etc) - and I suppose having close contact with women brings it all back. [...]

I am assuming you've seen the movie in question. So what do you think?

Yes, I have seen it. The part of your post I left here is the one that is, in my view, the best interpretation. In short, his attitude is one of protection of women. Given that, I think its metaphorical usefulness for the philosophical quest is limited. Not engaging feminine types in philosophical discussion, for example, is not about protecting them from harm as much as it's about not wasting valuable time and energy.

Truth is, a really feminine person cannot be harmed by philosophy at all, anymore than if you swear at a person in a language they can't understand.

Okay, I'm seeing how his motives were pretty much stemming more from his fears than anything else. He failed at protecting the Morgan Freeman character from getting socked how many decades ago, and men have an aversion to seeing women hurt for some reason (misplaced responsibility?), more so than for men.

Yes, they certainly do. And the reasons for that are as complex as Woman itself, but include a natural biological inclination to protect that which provides you with offspring, as well as a desire to protect that part of Woman that is a construct of male ideation. It's like a man wanting to protect his own sense of what is virtuous.

[1otherS]

Dan Rowden
Woman and Jew aren't exactly the same type. But it's true he could have used a different lexicon, as could I on such matters. But I suspect he used the terms he did so as to give the ideas real world relevance, to personalise them. The feminine, and unconsciousness, abides most perfectly in real world women, so the correlation makes sense to me. That some people read what they want into philosophical ideas has been a problem for all philosophies.

1otherS
-WRONG: unconsciousness is not a condition mostly exclusive to one sex. Unconsciousness follows of an educational lack and a stripping of rights.

-All people give their interpretation of philosophy. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.

Dan Rowden
I don't think it matters one bit. Does it reflect on Nietzsche and his ideas that his anti-Semite, moron sister sucked up to the Nazis and was mostly responsible for them aligning themselves with certain of his ideas?

1otherS
Certain people on this forum are the modern equivalent of Niezsche's sister. Let's not get personal, you know who they are.

Dan Rowden
What? Firstly, Sue agrees with the ideas and always has done. Secondly, how do you know who ended the relationship? Thirdly, is your thinking always this shallow, petty and conventional?

1otherS
You shouldn't call me shallow, petty and conventional yet. The termination could have been done because of adopting ideas detrimental to their relationship, taking equal responsibility.

Dan Rowden
Condescension, patronisation, and not even a whiff of an argument. That is appearing more and more to be your stock in trade.

1otherS
The mirror doesn't always reveal a fun picture.

Dan Rowden
Oh, now that was predictable. It took you a while, though. Yeah, we were all deeply abused as kids. It's completely fucked us up and distorted out minds. Our fathers made our mothers beat us with dried kippers and rape us with barbed wire. What can you expect?

1otherS
We shouldn't turn this into a caricature.
It's hard to deny you display a lot of misanthropy and cynicism around here.I'm curious how it was caused.
I do the same tasteless joke-thing, but I'm working on this issue.

[rebecca702]

It's like a man wanting to protect his own sense of what is virtuous.

I'm reminded of a line from one of your videos (Sex & Ideation): "It's ironic in that man finds worth for himself in the creation of a thing that finds its own worth in being a thing created." The "social fiction of woman" has become a cornerstone for our society. No wonder people lash out at you when you try to expose it.

So, having read or heard more of Jed, do you think there's a similarity between your definition of Woman and his definition of Maya, Goddess of Delusion?

[1otherS]

Dan, are you going to answer my challenges or just stick with the sycophants like you always do?

[Cognition]

The list of women who did pre-21st century science is bigger than people think. Wikipedia has a [no doubt] non-exhaustive list on this page:

List of pre-21st-century female scientists

It's pretty interesting reading, actually.

Yeah, but as I browsed over it, I noticed that I don't really recognize hardly any of the names. I wonder how much of that is from historical stigma and how much isn't. Both sexes are of course equally intelligent, but I think because of the differences in the way their brains work, each gender might be predisposed toward excellence in different fields. In other words, I wonder if science might be a field that is effectively an extension of making certain relationships that males specialize in.

For example, genius physicists have highly powerful visualizing imaginations that give them insight into paradoxes. Many great physicists such as Einstein and Newton had behaviors that appear to have been on the autistic spectrum. Visual-spacial thinking and autism are both predominately male specialties. Could this difference in cognitive processing give males a slight advantage in physics? And of course there will have been, are, and will be great female physicists. But because it'd be less common for women to have high activity in visual-spatial processing, I think the number of women in the field will always be significantly lower.

I'll toss this in so I don't sound chauvinist: Women are usually significantly better at remembering details and pieces of information they store away from their detail-oriented attention (I seen this on Dr. Know). This would suggest that women are inherently better at fields that involve this type of thinking, ranging from fashion to crime scene investigator.

[1otherS]

Oops, you're thinking in eugenics again. The type of reasoning that leads people to believe Blacks shouldn't play chess or that Jews should lose their rights or that women belong in the kitchen.

Either you just play dumb or really don't want to see where your ideas actually end up.
With both options, you're not taking your responsibility as a thinker.

[rebecca702]

1otherS,

Dan, are you going to answer my challenges or just stick with the sycophants like you always do?

Take a look at your own words. Read them slowly.

Conclusion: if you think you're right, but become the laughing-stock of Ne Plus Ultra-members who have REAL degrees in philosophy, hard science, history...yet still feel you got the upperhand...you are living divorced from reality and your views have no merit.

Can you name all the logical fallacies you committed in that paragraph?

1otherS
I'm demonstrating the way of your thought everytime you write.

Hello?!? Nothing you say makes any sense. And you wonder why Dan doesn't respond the way you want him to?

[Dan Rowden]

Dan, are you going to answer my challenges or just stick with the sycophants like you always do?

What challenge? Where did you write anything that wasn't utter twaddle? Seriously, if you did, I missed it. Oh, and calling people who show genuine interest in sensible and meaningful discussion, "sycophants" isn't going to help in your desire to get me to engage you.

[Dan Rowden]

It's like a man wanting to protect his own sense of what is virtuous.

I'm reminded of a line from one of your videos (Sex & Ideation): "It's ironic in that man finds worth for himself in the creation of a thing that finds its own worth in being a thing created." The "social fiction of woman" has become a cornerstone for our society. No wonder people lash out at you when you try to expose it.

Yes, they're not just leaping to the defense of poor, defenseless females (in that oh so patronising way), they're leaping to the defense of the greater part of their entire worldview. This is why seeing the construct "Woman" for what it is, rather than just biological females, is so important.

So, having read or heard more of Jed, do you think there's a similarity between your definition of Woman and his definition of Maya, Goddess of Delusion?

I think there's some overlap, but I wouldn't like to answer that question in any complete way as this stage. I need to read some more.

[Dan Rowden]

The list of women who did pre-21st century science is bigger than people think. Wikipedia has a [no doubt] non-exhaustive list on this page:

List of pre-21st-century female scientists

It's pretty interesting reading, actually.

Yeah, but as I browsed over it, I noticed that I don't really recognize hardly any of the names. I wonder how much of that is from historical stigma and how much isn't.

Most of the names are not known to us because whilst they did science, and most probably did it quite well, they didn't make any serious breakthroughs, like most scientists. Even today, there will only be a rare few who achieve them because the fact is most science is extremely methodological and mundane. The spark of genius that creates genuine conceptual breakthroughs in science are rare even for men.

Both sexes are of course equally intelligent, but I think because of the differences in the way their brains work, each gender might be predisposed toward excellence in different fields. In other words, I wonder if science might be a field that is effectively an extension of making certain relationships that males specialize in. For example, genius physicists have highly powerful visualizing imaginations that give them insight into paradoxes.

Spatial reasoning, yes.

Many great physicists such as Einstein and Newton had behaviors that appear to have been on the autistic spectrum. Visual-spacial thinking and autism are both predominately male specialties. Could this difference in cognitive processing give males a slight advantage in physics? And of course there will have been, are, and will be great female physicists. But because it'd be less common for women to have high activity in visual-spatial processing, I think the number of women in the field will always be significantly lower.

I'd agree with that, but this may not be solely do to with aptitude, but also to do with disposition. The more abstract the field, the more men will be attracted to it. Those women that are will almost certainly be so because they possess a slightly different disposition than most women.

I'll toss this in so I don't sound chauvinist:

Ah, it depresses me to see men feeling like they have to do this. Enough I say!

Women are usually significantly better at remembering details and pieces of information they store away from their detail-oriented attention (I seen this on Dr. Know). This would suggest that women are inherently better at fields that involve this type of thinking, ranging from fashion to crime scene investigator.

Women tend to gravitate to research in science and are arguably better at it, by and large, than men. This is because of the points you make. It's a fact that women possess greater sensory acuity across the board, expect for sight. They possess this, and their natural attention to the realm of detail, because of the mother role. It's necessary for child rearing. This makes women very well suited to the mundane, methodological dynamics than make up so much of what science is. It's in may respects the backbone of scientific work. Women will no doubt make all sort of breakthroughs in various fields via this methodical research, but this is a different thing to the conceptual breakthroughs that have been mentioned. It is those that are pertinent to the broader philosophical discussion being had here.

[Dan Rowden]

I can only assume these are the "challenges" 1otherS set forth. Dare I? Oh, hell, what the heck. The worst that can happen is I fail miserably and take my life in some famous person's bedroom.

Woman and Jew aren't exactly the same type. But it's true he could have used a different lexicon, as could I on such matters. But I suspect he used the terms he did so as to give the ideas real world relevance, to personalise them. The feminine, and unconsciousness, abides most perfectly in real world women, so the correlation makes sense to me. That some people read what they want into philosophical ideas has been a problem for all philosophies.

-WRONG: unconsciousness is not a condition mostly exclusive to one sex.

No-one has ever said it was, as you've stated it here. Unconsciousness dominates in both sexes. For someone who claims familiarity with my philosophical views, you sure seem ignorant of them. The point is women are less conscious then men because they possess more of the feminine in their mental make-up.

Unconsciousness follows of an educational lack and a stripping of rights.

Unconsciousness has got exactly nothing to do with education and rights. It's clear as a winter's night that you have no grasp whatever of the issues, or what "unconsciousness" even means. Oh, and education was a largely class and gender role issue. Working class men weren't "educated" either. Or, more accurately, they were educated within the parameters of their social role, as were women. If you're going to trot out trite and tired feminist propaganda arguments, be prepared to be ignored, because I simply won't grant them the dignity of an argument.

All people give their interpretation of philosophy. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.

Actually, the wise do.

Does it reflect on Nietzsche and his ideas that his anti-Semite, moron sister sucked up to the Nazis and was mostly responsible for them aligning themselves with certain of his ideas?

Certain people on this forum are the modern equivalent of Niezsche's sister. Let's not get personal, you know who they are.

Well, that was an insight into your character I could have done without. I mean, that you didn't answer my question was to be expected, but it's quite remarkable that you can state that certain members here are the equivalent of Elizabeth Nietzsche and yet you don't want to get "personal" by naming them? You just hang the accusation out there, but don't want to be personal? Wtf? And, no, I don't know who they are because they don't exist.

What? Firstly, Sue agrees with the ideas and always has done. Secondly, how do you know who ended the relationship? Thirdly, is your thinking always this shallow, petty and conventional?

You shouldn't call me shallow, petty and conventional yet.

Why not? You're being all those things so it seems appropriate.

The termination could have been done because of adopting ideas detrimental to their relationship, taking equal responsibility.

Yes, the termination was done because of the adoption of ideas detrimental to the relation. i.e. true ideas were adopted by both parties. Kills a relationship everytime!

Condescension, patronisation, and not even a whiff of an argument. That is appearing more and more to be your stock in trade.

The mirror doesn't always reveal a fun picture.

The fact is you made no argument; you just offered petty assertions.

Oh, now that was predictable. It took you a while, though. Yeah, we were all deeply abused as kids. It's completely fucked us up and distorted out minds. Our fathers made our mothers beat us with dried kippers and rape us with barbed wire. What can you expect?

We shouldn't turn this into a caricature.

Um, that horse has bolted. You untied it with the utter banality of the "you must have had a bad childhood to have those point of view" gibberish. You really don't see how utterly inane it is, do you? Not just inane, but dishonest and fallacious.

It's hard to deny you display a lot of misanthropy and cynicism around here.

There is no misanthropy here. As for cynicism, yes, many of us are cynical about bullshit. You, on the other hand, are cynical about truth.

I'm curious how it was caused.

That's easy - in your imagination. In begins and ends there, my friend.

I do the same tasteless joke-thing, but I'm working on this issue.

There was no joke intended in my reply. I was outright mocking you because that's what the statements you offered deserved.

[Ataraxia]

Is there a particular reason why you recommend that for me?

Because Nieztsche's conception of 'man', while different and unique in itself ,is complementary with both Jed's and QSR's philosophy.

[Dan Rowden]

In this directory you'll find PDF versions of McKenna's books:

http://geniusrealms.com/McKenna/

There's a low quality (12.6M) and high quality (55.4M) of Spiritual Warfare. The low quality version is pretty crappy, but readable.

I've had reports that these PDFs will not open after being downloaded, yet they work fine on my system. Has anyone had problems with them?

[1otherS]

Dan Rowden
No-one has ever said it was, as you've stated it here. Unconsciousness dominates in both sexes. For someone who claims familiarity with my philosophical views, you sure seem ignorant of them. The point is women are less conscious then men because they possess more of the feminine in their mental make-up.

1otherS
You just equated femininity with unconsciousness again. This is nothing more than eugenics.

Dan Rowden
Unconsciousness has got exactly nothing to do with education and rights. It's clear as a winter's night that you have no grasp whatever of the issues, or what "unconsciousness" even means. Oh, and education was a largely class and gender role issue. Working class men weren't "educated" either. Or, more accurately, they were educated within the parameters of their social role, as were women. If you're going to trot out trite and tired feminist propaganda arguments, be prepared to be ignored, because I simply won't grant them the dignity of an argument.

1otherS
I don't advocate feminism. I'm trying to make you see how people getting duped out of an education are indeed underprivileged. Riddle me this: How's an illiterate box-folder going to appreciate Nagarjuna?

All people give their interpretation of philosophy. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.

Actually, the wise do.

1otherS
Beware of the people who call themselves wise!


Dan Rowden
Well, that was an insight into your character I could have done without. I mean, that you didn't answer my question was to be expected, but it's quite remarkable that you can state that certain members here are the equivalent of Elizabeth Nietzsche and yet you don't want to get "personal" by naming them? You just hang the accusation out there, but don't want to be personal? Wtf? And, no, I don't know who they are because they don't exist.


This site houses social darwinists and zealots of all trade. If YOU can't see that, take a break from this forum to get a fresh perspective. Read the good Nietzsche, if you must.



Dan Rowden
Yes, the termination was done because of the adoption of ideas detrimental to the relation. i.e. true ideas were adopted by both parties. Kills a relationship everytime!

1otherS
True ideas create a labile environ for your own son? What stand-up people!

Dan Rowden
The fact is you made no argument; you just offered petty assertions.
I back up my assertions...Go through my post-history: there's more to it than accusations.


We shouldn't turn this into a caricature.[/quote]

Dan Rowden
Um, that horse has bolted. You untied it with the utter banality of the "you must have had a bad childhood to have those point of view" gibberish. You really don't see how utterly inane it is, do you? Not just inane, but dishonest and fallacious.

1otherS
You didn't necessarily have a bad childhood but I do see you mounting your high horse very rapidly whenever things don't go your way.

Dan Rowden
There is no misanthropy here. As for cynicism, yes, many of us are cynical about bullshit. You, on the other hand, are cynical about truth.

1otherS
You claim 99% of humanity has no chance at true consciousness. Doesn't that sound like misanthropic elitism to you? If your 'truth' isn't bullshit, than nothing is.

Dan Rowden
That's easy - In your imagination. In begins and ends there, my friend.


1otherS
My friend, I'm not imagining you're just a jaded drinker and user. Others have confirmed this little fact.

Dan Rowden
There was no joke intended in my reply. I was outright mocking you because that's what the statements you offered deserved.

In REAL and MATURE discussions people don't deserve mockery.

[Dan Rowden]

There is no misanthropy here. As for cynicism, yes, many of us are cynical about bullshit. You, on the other hand, are cynical about truth.

You claim 99% of humanity has no chance at true consciousness. Doesn't that sound like misanthropic elitism to you?

Just for the sake of those newer members: this is either a deliberate or stupid falsehood. No person of the QSRH or sundry other acronyms has ever said anything remotely like this. What has been said is what is uncontentiously true: that 99% of humanity is ignorant and deluded. This follows logically from the fact that 99% of humanity do not possess wisdom. There's nothing misanthropic, elitist or cynical about such an observation. It is an observation borne of the deepest love, in fact.

[Unidian]

I believe a more accurate representation of the QRS view would be to say that everyone has a chance at consciousness, but 99% refuse to take it.

[Dan Rowden]

I'd say some refuse and others don't even know it's there to be taken. How the 99% breaks down in that sense is rather difficult to say in terms of actual figures, though the reasons for the differences are known to me and include enough consciousness to be intuitively aware of where more consciousness can lead.

[Unidian]

Yes, I'd agree that most people are aware enough to know what they stand to lose if they pursue certain lines of thinking.