Masculinity & Femininity

[Cory Duchesne]

When Christians (males) went around beheading people for not conforming to religion, where they acting on feminine impulse?

Was the violence of these Christians rooted in an 'aesthetic involvement or addcition' with not only actual women, but with fanciful symbols and imaginaion?

The same goes for witch burning. The nobility (males) of long ago had a tendency to label those who were misfits as witches and burn them. Did the nobility do this because they were too feminine? (too aethetically involved/addcited with actual women and images of order and security)?

America's bombings on Vietnam and Iraq were male activities as well and perhaps they were in the same way, fueled by aesthetic addiction to the world.

Is enlightenment accomplished by 'ridding' oneself of 'inner femmininity' and outer femminity?

And If so, what does it mean to be a feminine person?

Does it mean; to be aesthetically addicted?

Is it safe to say that, to be aesthetically titillated is to be an observer divided from the observed?

If I am purely masculine, do I have a self? Do I experience myself as seperate from the word? Am I aesthetically titilated by a divided part outside me (or even within me - for example, my imagination can created realities for me to be titillated by and attached to)

Is that what masculinity is? To be selfless (not neccesarily generous or noble)? To be experienceless? To not be emotionally titilated by subjectivity?

Is 'experience' a feminine thing?

And if I am purely masculine, wouldnt I be 'indifferent' to everything happening around me as well as to the outcomes of whatever is happening around me?

Quinn, Solway,

Why do you bother doing what you do? Why do you care if 'wisdom' is preserved for future generations?

Why are you not indifferent?

Is is because you are attached to the world? Even though you are very masculine and rational, are you not just a little bit feminine?

I realize that the Christian crusades, witch burning and the bombings of vietnam and Iraq are examples of humanity at its most unsophisticated, stupid and frightened.

However, perhaps lower forms of intelligence are more feminine in terms of the quality of their intelligence. Dogs, monkeys, Cats, snakes, seagulls.

Is femminity the more primitive base forms of neurological activity?

[Leyla Shen]

Hi, Cory:

For your consideration.

I have many times taken the position of objective (loosely, scientific; empirical is also a good adjective for it) defence against philosophical issues such as femininity. Generalisations like: femininity is such and so, therefore women are thus and though, I have felt, fail to hit a certain mark. I have found that, in taking such a position and having to defend my arguments, I have been more inclined to personal benefit more quickly than from asking a litany of questions. Of course, you must be willing to be wrong in the direction of being right for this to work, since you must take a position. No amount of answers to any amount of questions will mean anything unless you find a way to force your mind to absorb them.

Hence, I‘m am compelled to do the following with your post:

Edited

When Christians (males) went around beheading people for not conforming to religion, they were acting on feminine impulse.

The violence of these Christians was rooted in an 'aesthetic involvement or addcition' with not only actual women, but with fanciful symbols and imaginaion.

The same goes for witch burning. The nobility (males) of long ago had a tendency to label those who were misfits as witches and burn them. They did this because they were too feminine (too aethetically involved/addcited with actual women and images of order and security).

America's bombings on Vietnam and Iraq were male activities as well and were in the same way, fueled by aesthetic addiction to the world.

Enlightenment is accomplished by 'ridding' oneself of 'inner femmininity' and outer femminity.

Therefore, to be feminine is to be aesthetically addicted.

It safe to say that, to be aesthetically titillated is to be an observer divided from the observed. Corollary: to be undivided from the whole is therefore masculine.

If I am purely masculine, I cannot therefore have a self. I do not experience myself as seperate from the word. And, logically proceeding from this, I am not aesthetically titilated by a divided part outside me (or even within me - for example, my imagination can created realities for me to be titillated by and attached to)

That is what masculinity is. To be selfless (not neccesarily generous or noble). To be experience less. To not be emotionally titilated by subjectivity.

Therefore, 'experience' a feminine thing.

And if I am purely masculine (meaning, I am not aesthetically titillated by internal or external parts), I would be indifferent (which I here define to be non-aesthetically titillated) to everything happening around me as well as to the outcomes of whatever is happening around me.

Does this mean I would stop acting and die?

Quinn, Solway,

Why do you bother doing what you do? Why do you care if 'wisdom' is preserved for future generations?

You do not appear to be indifferent since you act toward a more aesthetically titillating world.

Is is because you are attached to the world? Even though you are very masculine and rational, are you not -- given the above -- just a little bit feminine?

I realize that the Christian crusades, witch burning and the bombings of Vietnam and Iraq are examples of humanity at its most unsophisticated, stupid and frightened.

However, perhaps lower forms of intelligence are more feminine in terms of the quality of their intelligence. Dogs, monkeys, Cats, snakes, seagulls. (You reckon they have a concept of aesthetics?)

Is femininity the more primitive base forms of neurological activity?

What would be your critical analysis of the above?

[Pye]

*
Leyla writes:

I have many times taken the position of objective (loosely, scientific; empirical is also a good adjective for it) defence against philosophical issues such as femininity. Generalisations like: femininity is such and so, therefore women are thus and though, I have felt, fail to hit a certain mark.

Yes, if the mark is truth, generalizations are doomed. Flaccid (boring) and doomed.

Exceptions, however, are not. They stand a far greater chance of finding the way-to.

.

[Cory Duchesne]

Leyla Shen,

How about this:

---------------------------------------------------------
1) Being unwise is being 'attached/addicted to' aesthetic titillation.

2) Aesthetic titilation is femininity.

3) To be feminine is to be attached.

4) To be attached is to be unwise.

5) Being unwise is being (minimally, moderately, or excessively) feminine.

6) To be partly feminine, is to be partly masculine.

--------------------------------------------------------

My first post was examining the relationship between the more animalistic and primitive parts of the brain in relationship to aesthetic titillation.

All animals appear to enjoy aesthetic titillation. (even earthworms enjoy being stroked gently).

I'll cap this off with a quote by kierkegaard:

"Intellectually, in the realm of ideas, thought, etc., woman as compared to man is usually pictured as being something of a little goose. But in the realm of what could be called instinctive sagacity, man is a big clod compared to woman.

In an idle moment as I walked today it occurred to me that if for the sake of curiosity one were to imagine momentarily that the man could bear children - I am convinced that the births would be extremely difficult, and why? Among other reasons because he would not scream. He would say to himself: You are a man; it is inappropriate to scream - and would force back the scream. The woman, on the other hand, screams immediately - and it is well known that this screaming assists the birth.

There is something of genius about this instinctive sagacity in every woman; with a stroke of genius she takes a radical shortcut, whereas the man, who is weighed down by a thousand reflections, is also weighed down by an occasional but all too pompous idea of his own dignity in being a man."

-Soren Kierkegaard


This quote by Kierkegaard supports my suspicion that the feminine quality of consciousness is primitive, instinctive and is bound to titillation

What do you think?

[Greg Shantz]

Cory Patrick wrote:

When Christians (males) went around beheading people for not conforming to religion, where they acting on feminine impulse?

Any impulse is feminine.

Was the violence of these Christians rooted in an 'aesthetic involvement or addiction' with not only actual women, but with fanciful symbols and imagination?

Everything is a fanciful symbol. Or a simple one.

Is enlightenment accomplished by 'ridding' oneself of 'inner femmininity' and outer femminity?

Yes. What is the difference?

And If so, what does it mean to be a feminine person?

To be a feminine person means to be addicted to immediacy, ever-changing, passive, subject to others' wills and inflexible.

Does it mean; to be aesthetically addicted?

If it means to value happiness, if happiness is an aesthetic addiction, then yes, being feminine means being aesthetically addicted.

Is it safe to say that, to be aesthetically titillated is to be an observer divided from the observed?

Yes.

If I am purely masculine, do I have a self?

It is impossible to be purely masculine. Masculinity and femininity are dualisms that create the self.

Do I experience myself as seperate from the word?

In the beginning the Word was with God.

Am I aesthetically titillated by a divided part outside me (or even within me - for example, my imagination can created realities for me to be titillated by and atotached to)

What is the difference between the inner and the outer?

Is that what masculinity is? To be selfless (not neccesarily generous or noble)?

Only a Buddha is selfless.

To be experienceless? To not be emotionally titilated by subjectivity?

Only a Buddha is these things.

Is 'experience' a feminine thing?

Experience arises from the interplay of the masculine and feminine.

And if I am purely masculine, wouldnt I be 'indifferent' to everything happening around me as well as to the outcomes of whatever is happening around me?

No, only if you were perfect would you be these things.

Is femminity the more primitive base forms of neurological activity?

Yes.

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, I am pretty much in agreement with your post but will elaborate further a bit later.

One thing I would like to say is that I have never been a screamer. I have had three children and all three (natural) births were fucking difficult. I'm such a man, I didn't take the drugs for the first two. With the third, I took laughing gas more for the sake of the mid-wife than anything else -- and the fact that I was actually in no position to punch the bitch in the fucking head though I came close to making the attempt -- it was just this thing was kinda getting in the way.

[Leyla Shen]

Cory,

What do you think?

Yes, I agree. But I think you asking the QSR whether or not they are still feminine is irrelevant. Mind you, I can say that quite easily since I have frequented this place for a while now and asked the very same question of them many times myself.

And this always leads to the place of no return -- well, I haven’t returned from it completely, yet! The question of an emotionless individual, ie a fully enlightened Buddha. If feminine consciousness is largely about sensory consciousness (impulse/instinct) and masculine the faculty of logic and reason, then for an individual to be emotionless would have to mean that every single sensory perception is processed directly by analysis and every response is similarly processed. These Buddhas, then, must have logic and reason so down pat that it functions faster than the speed of lightning -- faster, even, than impulse and instinct: in fact, I can actually imagine the possibility of it eliminating them altogether.

[Matt Gregory]

Today I was reading the Tao Te Ching, and it got me thinking: surely masculinity and femininity are contextual. I don't think there is such thing as an absolute masculinity or an absolute femininity.

Take someone who decides to be a sage. He starts out ignorant, so he's naturally physical aggressive to some extent, which would be masculine. He takes this aggression, directs it at his ignorance, and destroys all of it. Ok, so now he's a sage, which is supposedly a non-violent person (according to this Tao Te Ching).

So, wouldn't that make him a feminine person now, in regards to physical action? I think it would.

.

[sschaula]

A sage is a sage. A female is a female. A male is a male. Males can become sages, females can't. A female could possibly become male. Sages aren't male or female in nature, although their bodies may be one or the other.

[Leyla Shen]

Matt wrote:

Today I was reading the Tao Te Ching, and it got me thinking: surely masculinity and femininity are contextual. I don't think there is such thing as an absolute masculinity or an absolute femininity.

No, I don’ t think there is such a thing.

Take someone who decides to be a sage. He starts out ignorant, so he's naturally physical aggressive to some extent, which would be masculine. He takes this aggression, directs it at his ignorance, and destroys all of it. Ok, so now he's a sage, which is supposedly a non-violent person (according to this Tao Te Ching).

So, wouldn't that make him a feminine person now, in regards to physical action? I think it would.

There is more to being a sage, in my view, than simply being a non-violent person. That’s a very ordinary and supremely simplified perspective. It’s the mindset that needs to be contemplated. Good question, though. I’d like to write more to it soon.

[Cory Duchesne]

Greg,

CP - Was the violence of these Christians rooted in an 'aesthetic involvement or addiction' with not only actual women, but with fanciful symbols and imagination?

GS - Everything is a fanciful symbol. Or a simple one.

I disagree. A good example of someone who is aesthetically addicted to ‘non-symbols’ are drug addicts. In the case of drug addicts, it is not the symbol that they are aesthetically involved with and addicted to, (however, they may “also” be addicted to the symbolic as well); it is an actual quality (a drug) (or a woman) which of course is a non-symbol. Symbolic addictions are more in the imagination. The imagination can contrive a system of immortality and morality (Christianity), it can invent a heaven, it can conjure an image of the self as great, etc…..

CP: Is enlightenment accomplished by 'ridding' oneself of 'inner femmininity' and outer femminity?

GS: Yes. What is the difference?

The difference is between the imagination, and the actuality.

Both are sources of addiction. One can be addicted to both worlds simultaneously.

CP: If I am purely masculine, do I have a self?

GS: It is impossible to be purely masculine. Masculinity and femininity are dualisms that create the self.

Yes, but what if the self comes to an end? Can one have no self?

And if my self came to an end, would I be beyond feminine and masculine? Perhaps you are saying that it is impossible to bring the self to an end?

CP: [if I am purely masculine] Do I experience myself as separate from the word?

GS: In the beginning the Word was with God.

Who says ‘now’ isn’t just as much the beginning as any other time?

Are you saying that the word isn’t just a accidental by-product of the freakish capabilities of our nervous system? What do you mean by God? Did language arise shortly after the human nervous system began to sprout from the ground of the reptilian cortex? Or is language the very essence?

CP: Am I aesthetically titillated by a divided part outside me (or even within me - for example, my imagination can created realities for me to be titillated by and attached to)


GS: What is the difference between the inner and the outer?

The difference is:

The Imagination(the subjective world) is the inner…..and the Actuality (the objective world) is the outer. I realize that the inner world of imagination and subjectivity, ‘becomes’ an objective actuality……..and the inner and outer become indivisible. Basically what i am saying, is that its important to make the distinction between aesthetic involvement with actuality and aesthetic involvment with image-making, imagination.

So ‘ultimately’, there is no division between inner and outer, however, clearly a division is created. It’s just like the world.

Ultimately there is just one world, however, we have created boundaries, countries, nations, etc…….

So, in order to dispel the division between inner and outer, one must recognize that one’s animal impulses, emotions used the imagination and subjectivity to divide and fragment everything.

CP: Is that what masculinity is? To be selfless (not neccesarily generous or noble)?

GS: Only a Buddha is selfless.

Isn’t Buddha just another word for selfless, perfect? And even those 3 words mask the truth. Nouns don’t help much. We need to examine what is beneath the nouns

CP: To be experienceless? To not be emotionally titilated by subjectivity?

GS: Only a Buddha is these things.

Sure, fine……use whatever word you want, but one must realize the danger of nouns. Why use words like ‘god’, and ‘buddha’? Look at the mess humanity has got itself into by means of big all encompassing nouns. Why keep making the same mistake? Nouns are very often childish. Lets stop peddling them, and try to keep our speech empirical.

CP: Is 'experience' a feminine thing?

GS: Experience arises from the interplay of the masculine and feminine.

Seems likely enough. Experiences arises from the interplay of sensation, impulse, instinct and thought, reason, logic.
Our brains govern the speed at which we experience time passing. We can slow our brains down to realize there is no time (by means of sensory deprivation). We can be hedonists in an attempt to speed up time………pleasurable sensations produce the effect of accelerated time………whereas painful, frightening or even shocking experiences slow experience down.

CP: And if I am purely masculine, wouldn’t I be 'indifferent' to everything happening around me as well as to the outcomes of whatever is happening around me?

GS: No, only if you were perfect would you be these things.

And so, are you saying being perfect is ‘not’ being purely masculine? What does it mean to be perfect? What does it imply? beyond masculinity and femininity?

[Greg Shantz]

Cory Patrick wrote:

CP: In the case of drug addicts, it is not the symbol that they are aesthetically involved with and addicted to, (however, they may “also” be addicted to the symbolic as well); it is an actual quality (a drug) (or a woman) which of course is a non-symbol.

Even sensations or qualities are symbols.

CP: Is enlightenment accomplished by 'ridding' oneself of 'inner femininity' and outer femininity?

GS: Yes. What is the difference?

CP: The difference is between the imagination, and the actuality.

What is the difference between the imagination and the actuality?

CP:Yes, but what if the self comes to an end? Can one have no self?

Yes.

CP:And if my self came to an end, would I be beyond feminine and masculine?

Yes. As long as you are remaining conscious.

CP:Perhaps you are saying that it is impossible to bring the self to an end?

It is very difficult.

CP:Are you saying that the word isn’t just a accidental by-product of the freakish capabilities of our nervous system?

No.

CP:What do you mean by God?

The unborn.

CP:Did language arise shortly after the human nervous system began to sprout from the ground of the reptilian cortex?

Possibly.

Or is language the very essence?

Well, I was referring to Christianity, which is said to be the "Word" of God, which has existed from time immemorial. Though not in written form, obviously.

GS: What is the difference between the inner and the outer?

CP:The difference is: The Imagination(the subjective world) is the inner

All worlds are subjective because they are made of of symbols that exist only for the individual who experiences them.

CP: Is that what masculinity is? To be selfless (not neccesarily generous or noble)?

GS: Only a Buddha is selfless.

CP: Isn’t Buddha just another word for selfless, perfect?

I think 'Buddha' means formless.

Why use words like ‘god’, and ‘buddha’?

Why not? They are as good as any other words.

And so, are you saying being perfect is ‘not’ being purely masculine?

Yes.

What does it mean to be perfect?

To be beyond masculinity and femininity.

What does it imply? beyond masculinity and femininity?

Yes.

[Cory Duchesne]

Matt,

MG: Take someone who decides to be a sage.

I question whether that someone would be actually ‘deciding’. I don’t think someone decides to be what they are. But I do realize it’s a common convenient figure of speech to use the word decide - - so please pardon my nit-pickidy-ness.

MG: He starts out ignorant, so he's naturally physical aggressive to some extent, which would be masculine.

The whole point of my post was to tackle assumptions like these. My first post talked about the Christian crusades, witch burning, and bombings of Iraq (all acts of aggression). Wouldn’t you say aggression is animal impulse overriding reason and logic? And wouldn’t you agree that animal impulse is actually feminine rather than masculine? This means that all of those ill-tempered boys who were always getting in fights back in grade school were actually exceptionally feminine, emotional boys, whereas, the more calm and reserved boys were more masculine, or at least ‘less’ feminine. The tendencies to be macho was surely a development that arose out of an animalistic(feminine)desire to attract females.

Why don’t girls become macho and get in fights as readily as boys? To be attractive to men. Was it the rational masculine faculty within girls making the girls pretty themselves up by avoiding fighting and putting on make-up for the sake of men’s aesthetic sensibility? Why do girls prefer rough, muscle bound men who can fight? It appeals to their instincts (femininity). Surely a woman is not going to pair up with a boy who is easily dominated by the more aggressive male. And what about the exceptional females who are attractive to more intellectual and sensitive men? These women are a bit more rational(masculine)….however their femininity will avoid/be turned off by a sage. She may be a bit more masculine than most women, but she will 'not' go that far.

And what about the women who are attracted to sages or the words of sages, or even truth?

Maybe you can answer that Leyla Shen.

MG: He takes this aggression, directs it at his ignorance, and destroys all of it.

Males do seem to be more passionate and intense emotionally. This could be due to the unique painful pressure caused by being very rational and emotional simultaneously. It could also be due to the fact of males being biologically more robust, energetic and thus emotionally more charged. Males are perhaps more feminine and masculine. And as for the destruction of aggression, I don’t attribute this to an aggressive ‘ready, aim, fire’ type of mentality…….I attribute it simply to ‘dying’, giving up, a withering away of the will. Enlightenment is a renewal of being that occurs after one is totally exhausted and sick of living, enlightenment is death.

This death is a death of the relationship between explanations/images and animal instincts.


Something else to consider - -- the other day I was recording music on my computer, I had my headphones on and when I pressed play, the volume was not only turned up too loud, but the feedback was very intense and made a screeching noise like an animal. My reaction was instant. My whole body jolted ‘with’ the shrieking sound. I doubt that there was even an interval between ‘from’ when the sound started ‘to’ when I jumped. My reaction was faster than a thought processes could ever function…… Would this be fear? I tell you there was no egotistical ‘worry’ involved in the reaction. I don’t think it was fear in the sense that the perennial wisdom warns against.

I don’t know if this part of the nervous system could or should be overridden. (the part that makes you jump in the presence of danger)

[Leyla Shen]

Cory,

Maybe you can answer that Leyla Shen.

Sure. I’ll give you a brief account of my thoughts on the subject.

Why don’t girls become macho and get in fights as readily as boys? To be attractive to men. Was it the rational masculine faculty within girls making the girls pretty themselves up by avoiding fighting and putting on make-up for the sake of men’s aesthetic sensibility?

I would have to say it was both. It was a touch of masculinity directed toward femininity.

Why do girls prefer rough, muscle bound men who can fight? It appeals to their instincts (femininity). Surely a woman is not going to pair up with a boy who is easily dominated by the more aggressive male.

Yes. A feminine woman has a preference for (what is defined within the context of this discussion as) a feminine man; that is, one who acts on instinct/impulse. This also explains how the feminisation of a society is possible.

And what about the exceptional females who are attractive to more intellectual and sensitive men? These women are a bit more rational (masculine)….however their femininity will avoid/be turned off by a sage. She may be a bit more masculine than most women, but she will go that far.

Surprise. :) I need to clarify this one. Do you mean that such a woman is masculine (rational) enough to be attracted to a rational male but not quite rational enough to be attracted to sagehood itself? I mean, how rational would she be if she were atrracted instinctively/impulsively to a sage (and I assume you are alluding to a manifested sexual attraction, here, when you say, "their femininity will avoid/be turned off by a sage)?

And what about the women who are attracted to sages or the words of sages, or even truth?

Ah, so she can go at least one step further, it seems. I think anyone who is attracted to the truth is just that -- attracted to truth. The answer is: what exactly does it take to live truth every single moment of your life rather than find it appealing from a distance.

My reaction was faster than a thought processes could ever function…… Would this be fear?

Well, it is fear. I guess you could chop fear up into instinctual and emotional fear, where instinctual fear would be a physical reaction and emotional fear a consequent psychological one.

I tell you there was no egotistical ‘worry’ involved in the reaction. I don’t think it was fear in the sense that the perennial wisdom warns against.

I think it is. I had an experience today. My daughter was at one end of the house and I the other. She called out a word, which I did not hear. I had heard the previous part of her statement, so I had context. I then replayed the sound of her speech in my mind and, together with the context and memory, figured out what she was talking about.

If I compare this with your experience, I reckon I could justifiably say that you were missing context -- like, you did not notice or observe (were not conscious of) the fact that the volume was turned up. This is how I relate degrees of consciousness to the absence or presence of instinct/impulse.

[Cory Duchesne]

Greg,

CP: In the case of drug addicts, it is not the symbol that they are aesthetically involved with and addicted to, (however, they may “also” be addicted to the symbolic as well); it is an actual quality (a drug) (or a woman) which of course is a non-symbol.

GS: Even sensations or qualities are symbols.

Do you agree that the signifier(the symbol) is not the signified(sensation, chemical reaction, quality)? The word is not the thing. No?
If I am addicted to the sensation(chemical reaction) that cigarettes provide, I am not addicted to symbols in the same sense that an obsessive mathematician is addicted to the triviality of his number crunching. The mathematician is addicted to the chemical reaction that his fancied symbolic provides. Not all symbol is fancied. There are simply practical symbols such as a warning sign.
For the mathematician, it is not the number crunching alone, but it is the attention he gets from the academy and others. He has an image of himself as a great man. He is addicted to his imagination (this is vanity) which is purely symbolic. Unlike the drug addict who is addicted to that which is outside his imagination…..Drugs and the chemical reactions they provide are not symbols.
The Christian and the patriot are both good examples of people who are addicted to a more subjective, inward and symbolic world. However, the chemical reaction that the symbols help provide are not symbols, and are the essence of the addiction.
There is a significant distinction to be made between the man who is addicted to image, thought, abstraction, symbol and ideas in comparison to the man who is addicted to women, drugs, food, gambling. Both are slaves to chemical reactions, however one process is more subtle and harder to detect then the other, and is perhaps more deadly.

CP: Is enlightenment accomplished by 'ridding' oneself of 'inner femininity' and outer femininity?

GS: Yes. What is the difference?

CP: The difference is between the imagination, and the actuality.


GS: What is the difference between the imagination and the actuality?

What’s the difference between ‘fact’ and ‘superstition’? Between delusion and understanding? What’s the difference between a group of humans believing the world is flat compared to a smaller group of humans seeing the fact of the earths roundness? What’s the difference between believing the earth is the center of universe compared to the humans who comprehended the fact of earth’s infinitesimally peripheral position?
Facts exist whether I like them or not. Superstitions exist as long as I am able to maintain them without too much conflict. Even if conflict becomes severe, I may hold onto my superstitions ever more tightly.

CP: What do you mean by God?


GS: The unborn.

What’s the difference between ‘God as the whole body of cause and effect’ and ‘God as the unborn’?
Do you see consciousness extending beyond the human brain? Or do you see consciousness as illusion altogether? Is all matter to a certain degree conscious and feeling? Or is that nonsense to you?

CP: Or is language the very essence?


GS: Well, I was referring to Christianity, which is said to be the "Word" of God, which has existed from time immemorial. Though not in written form, obviously

Are you referring to a type of encryption or code that is undivided from and extending infinitely from whatever coded encryption we can observe (such as DNA and genetics) Are DNA and genetics the tip of the iceberg? (the iceberg being the word of God) Is that what you mean by the word of God? Is the word of God a matrix of code underlying and perhaps projecting what we experience?

GS: What is the difference between the inner and the outer?

CP:The difference is: The Imagination(the subjective world) is the inner


GS: All worlds are subjective because they are made of symbols that exist only for the individual who experiences them.

When you say subjective - - do you mean: ‘thought-based’? So your saying that all worlds are thought based?
Do all animals, insects, microorganisms have ‘thoughts’? Animals function in the world. They sense, see, hear, feel, etc….Is it entirely ‘thought based.’?
And if not, than that would refute your assertion that all worlds are thought based, because there are creatures that function without thought. However you could also say that these creatures have no consciousness or awareness of there being any world.
What is your response to the Taoist assertion that the word/symbol is not the thing?

Alright, one more question:

If being perfect = being beyond masculinity and femininity, is this state of perfection a state of formlessness?

And do I reach that state by using rationality to diffuse the stranglehold of femininity?

[Matt Gregory]

MG: Ok, so now he's a sage, which is supposedly a non-violent person (according to this Tao Te Ching).

LS: There is more to being a sage, in my view, than simply being a non-violent person. That’s a very ordinary and supremely simplified perspective. It’s the mindset that needs to be contemplated.

Yeah, I just meant that non-violence is one of his attributes. I didn't mean it's his only attribute.

[Matt Gregory]

MG: Take someone who decides to be a sage.

CP: I question whether that someone would be actually ‘deciding’. I don’t think someone decides to be what they are. But I do realize it’s a common convenient figure of speech to use the word decide - - so please pardon my nit-pickidy-ness.

They decide to the degree that they want to make a change to what they are.

MG: He starts out ignorant, so he's naturally physical aggressive to some extent, which would be masculine.

CP: The whole point of my post was to tackle assumptions like these. My first post talked about the Christian crusades, witch burning, and bombings of Iraq (all acts of aggression). Wouldn’t you say aggression is animal impulse overriding reason and logic? And wouldn’t you agree that animal impulse is actually feminine rather than masculine?

Well, I was trying to focus on one particular attribute, physical aggression, without having to consider other ones, like what the impulse is. The idea is that it's a more precise way to think about it. But I was thinking, you could take it further and judge each individual action as masculine and feminine instead of lumping them all together and judging them, in which case you would have aggressive actions and passive actions. Then the problem becomes pretty much tautological.

In any case, I think it's kind of vague to say that someone as a whole is masculine or feminine without giving some sort of attributive qualification. But, since we're on the Genius Forum talking about wisdom, I suppose it was kind of a weak point to make since masculinity and femininity are almost always used in regards to the pursuit of wisdom here, so I guess I really have nothing to add to this discussion. I pretty much agree with what you're saying.

Something else to consider - -- the other day I was recording music on my computer, I had my headphones on and when I pressed play, the volume was not only turned up too loud, but the feedback was very intense and made a screeching noise like an animal. My reaction was instant. My whole body jolted ‘with’ the shrieking sound. I doubt that there was even an interval between ‘from’ when the sound started ‘to’ when I jumped. My reaction was faster than a thought processes could ever function…… Would this be fear? I tell you there was no egotistical ‘worry’ involved in the reaction. I don’t think it was fear in the sense that the perennial wisdom warns against.

U.G. Krishnamurti once noted that there is such a thing as physical fear, and I think that probably explains it. I don't think it's anything to worry about getting rid of. A skill like that would be more along the lines of a physical stunt or something.

[Cory Duchesne]

Leyla,

CP: Why don’t girls become macho and get in fights as readily as boys? To be attractive to men. Was it the rational masculine faculty within girls making the girls pretty themselves up by avoiding fighting and putting on make-up for the sake of men’s aesthetic sensibility?


LS: I would have to say it was both. It was a touch of masculinity directed toward femininity.

CP: That’s right, like children, women and men can both be very pragmatic and logical when it comes to fulfilling their instinctive, animalistic, irrational desire. Men will get very scientific about weight-lifting, in order to achieve the absurdity of their fantasies. Women of course become very pragmatic about clothes and makeup. Humans employ moderate to more intense degrees of rationality in order to achieve certain degrees of irrational, egotistical ends.
A sort of “If it feels good: do it” philosophy.

CP: Why do girls prefer rough, muscle bound men who can fight? It appeals to their instincts (femininity). Surely a woman is not going to pair up with a boy who is easily dominated by the more aggressive male.


LS: Yes. A feminine woman has a preference for (what is defined within the context of this discussion as) a feminine man; that is, one who acts on instinct/impulse.
This also explains how the feminization of a society is possible.

Do you think the greek society was less feminine than our societies today? What are some examples of ‘not-as-feminized’ cultures, past and present?
I heard that in Switzerland, women voted against their right to vote.
Is this true?
Switzerland is a very well run place. While America on the other hand…….

CP: And what about the exceptional females who are attractive to more intellectual and sensitive men? These women are a bit more rational (masculine)….however their femininity will avoid/be turned off by a sage. She may be a bit more masculine than most women, but she will generally ‘not’ go that far.


LS: Surprise. :) I need to clarify this one.
Do you mean that such a woman is masculine (rational) enough to be attracted to a rational male but not quite rational enough to be attracted to sagehood itself?

CP: Well, some women go after the more intellectual fellows. However, this may be because the more confident stereotypical guys are already taken up by the more stereotypical females (nice body, shallow thoughts).
A women who finds herself to be a bit more intellectual and more attracted to the intellectual sensitive man ‘is’ the way she is, simply because she has no choice to be. She can’t court the more ideal man, or be the air-headed miss popular. This is simply because she doesn’t have the physical goods to win him, or be air-headed. Pretty girls are often stupid probably because they are so overwhelmed with their image in the mirror, and thus spend so much time worshiping their reflection, plus, they always have a lot of action in their lives. Lots of friends and boy admirers who are like moths around a light. They end up being envied and generate a lot of enemies, so this also helps keep them occupied on a very petty level. Girls that aren’t as well endowed physically, end up having no choice to be a bit more independent, simply because they have no choice to be – life is harder for them. They end up courting the more intellectual, sensitive males simply because the more physically attractive and brutal men are taken by the more feminine girls.

Males end up being more intellectual and sensitive for the same reason as girls. They have no choice to be. They would like to be athletic and cocky, but simply don’t have the goods. They take to the books and focus on gaining power in more clever ways.

Actually, ironically enough, I suspect some humans aspire and become exceptionally rationally, only because they were exceptionally feminine. There is the case of the dumb, vacant, slow learning boy, who, because of his lack of wit and easy going intelligence, had the passion to devote himself to becoming superhumanly rational. So he became exceptionally (masculine) rational only because of how exceptionally (feminine)irrational he originally was. He became exceptionally peacefull only because of how exceptionally miserable he was.

Ever see the movie “A beautiful mind” with Russell Crowe? Why was that woman attracted to that man? (lets just assume he didn’t look like Russell Crowe) ……the reason is because she didn’t have the goods to marry a more well adjusted normal man… And so she settled for the next best thing……intellectual power - - -but would she have married him if he hadn’t won awards, gained attention, and was employed by people with lots of power and money? No, probably not. That's why women don’t go after sages unless there was some sort of consensus that the sage was a special, great man ( see Jiddu Krishnamurti). A sage can easily become perceived as a rock star if he generates a big enough following. Only when a sage has attracted numbers, will a female be drawn to him. Women like numbers. Men too of course. But men become miserable a lot more easier than women, and thus will have more passion to go beyond the ways of the world. Of course there are other reasons why men seem to be more inclined to aspire for understanding. Overall, I am saying that the more athletic, more brutal jocks and air-headed ditzy women are cursed by what appears to be a fortune – raw sexual appeal.

They’re aesthetic sexual attractiveness keeps them animalistic………..whereas the not so physically attractive have no choice to become more rational.

And as for beautiful people who are rational? Perhaps their unusual intellectual ability combined with good looks is due do highly unusual environmental influences (basically - - just plain luck).

I know there are exceptions to everything I said, and I suppose I am counting on readers to point them out, otherwise my post would be too long - -although this one seems to be becoming too long regardless.

Ah, have you ever heard of Vimala Thakar? She is perhaps the only female sage I have ever heard of. A phenomenal women. I would call her a sage. Not sexually attractive, although not ugly.

Some might say that the ideal face for an aspiring sage would be to have a very ugly face. However, it is hard for an ugly human to make it through childhood and puberty without becoming irreversibly emotionally damaged, bitter, resentful. I heard Socrates was a rather ugly man. That perhaps ‘partially’ explains his profound character.

CP: And what about the women who are attracted to sages or the words of sages, or even truth?

LS: Ah, so she can go at least one step further, it seems. I think anyone who is attracted to the truth is just that -- attracted to truth. The answer is: what exactly does it take to live truth every single moment of your life rather than find it appealing from a distance.

I think anyone who is attracted to truth is miserable with what they have thus achieved/come to know. They are sick of the past vanities and want new vanities. Or they want to end vanity altogether. It is only miserable people who seek for the greater. Father and mother figures often put great expectations and inculcate high ideals in their children and this often compels humans to strive for greatness as well. Although pressure from parents can just as often send a child into premature decrepitude.

And as for the question: what exactly does it take to live truth every single moment of your life rather than finding it appealing from a distance?……well……there are some very basic things that most people foolishly don’t bother with. Eating properly. Being able to engage in truthful conversation with someone, or even oneself, being attentive to one's fantasies and day dreams……..doing these basic things instead sitting in the corner with ones legs crossed and ones nose plugged, or torturing oneself with ridiculous yoga postures is a good foundation that is most often neglected. (not saying yoga isn’t useful…….but people take it too far in order to escape from simple fundamental things like eating healthy, minimally, and being honest with oneself and other people)

I think your comments on fear make sense to a degree(instinctive and emotional, ok). Although I was emphasizing how my 'jolt' from the loud music was not 'egotistical worry' which is a whole other bag of worms. (although i might have been doing music out of egotistical worry) It is this 'worry' that is the problem. Whereas, Instinctive fear is only necessary when one is not fully conscious of conditions around oneself. (egotistical worry may cause conditions where one is inattentive and unaware and thus ‘jolted’ by an error they made) I'm not sure if some can become so perfect that they never make superficial mistakes. I think enlightenment, or wisdom is the prevention of the more major errors, although, perhaps there have been and will continue to be almost flawless or completely flawless human beings. Perhaps with the help of genetic engineering.

I don’t think the instinctive fear program actually becomes diffused, although, the more rational one becomes, the less often this more primitive faculty is used.

What was I doing recording music anyway? Escaping from higher responsibilities…

[Greg Shantz]

Cory Patrick wrote:

Do you agree that the signifier(the symbol) is not the signified(sensation, chemical reaction, quality)?

Yes. They are two different things. But they can both be called symbols.

The word is not the thing. No?

Correct.

What’s the difference between ‘God as the whole body of cause and effect’ and ‘God as the unborn’?

The difference is that the first refers to the Totality, and the second to God-consciousness.

Do you see consciousness extending beyond the human brain?

Possibly.

Or do you see consciousness as illusion altogether?

No.

Is all matter to a certain degree conscious and feeling? Or is that nonsense to you?

No. It is impossible to say. It might be or it might not be. We can't know one way or the other.

Are you referring to a type of encryption or code that is undivided from and extending infinitely from whatever coded encryption we can observe (such as DNA and genetics) Are DNA and genetics the tip of the iceberg?

I was referring to God-consciousness, which can be spoken about and written down.

When you say subjective - - do you mean: ‘thought-based’?

I mean something appearing to an individual mind.

Do all animals, insects, microorganisms have ‘thoughts’?

No.

What is your response to the Taoist assertion that the word/symbol is not the thing?

I agree with it.

If being perfect = being beyond masculinity and femininity, is this state of perfection a state of formlessness?

Yes.

And do I reach that state by using rationality to diffuse the stranglehold of femininity?

Precisely.

[Matt Gregory]

I actually forgot the whole reason for my original post and the reason for bringing up the Tao Te Ching. I was thinking about that Yin/Yang symbol and I was thinking it may be that for every masculine action, there is an equal and feminine reaction. So maybe it isn't a matter of discarding femininity in favor of masculinity, but repositioning them in the desired places. I don't know, just a thought.

[Cory Duchesne]

MG: Take someone who decides to be a sage.

CP: I question whether that someone would be actually ‘deciding’. I don’t think someone decides to be what they are. But I do realize it’s a common convenient figure of speech to use the word decide - - so please pardon my nit-pickidy-ness.

MG: They decide to the degree that they want to make a change to what they are.

Yes but ‘wanting’ to change what one is, is not a choice. It is an involuntary response to suffering/discontent - -which is not a choice. One ‘is’ negative (involuntarily) and from this negative state there in an involuntarily urge, a ‘want’ for the positive. What is the positive? It is whatever one is conditioned to believe it is. Conditioning is an involuntary process as well. The process of conditioning involves certain degrees of doubt, worry, anxiety, awareness and belief, all of which are not choices, they are simply symptoms of what we are, and what we are is not a choice.
There is no decision, no choice. Only an involuntary process that we call living.

MG: He starts out ignorant, so he's naturally physical aggressive to some extent, which would be masculine.

CP: The whole point of my post was to tackle assumptions like these. My first post talked about the Christian crusades, witch burning, and bombings of Iraq (all acts of aggression). Wouldn’t you say aggression is animal impulse overriding reason and logic? And wouldn’t you agree that animal impulse is actually feminine rather than masculine?

MG: Well, I was trying to focus on one particular attribute, physical aggression, without having to consider other ones, like what the impulse is.

Isn’t that just like trying to understand a tree by only studying its branches while ignoring its roots? You cannot understand the branches of a tree without seeing them as undivided from the roots.
If you divide aggression from what is essentially its essence (impulse) then you are not understanding aggression. Instead one is simply fooling oneself in to thinking one knows, when really one is confused.

MG: The idea is that it's a more precise way to think about it.

CP: Over-sharpen the blade and the edge soon becomes blunt. In other words, keep your distance; if you look too closely you become lost. I am not saying one should have a fine eye for detail, but after examining as close as you can…..don’t forget to step back.

MG: But I was thinking, you could take it further and judge each individual action as masculine and feminine instead of lumping them all together and judging them, in which case you would have aggressive actions and passive actions.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking your ‘taking things further’. What your calling for is a very conventional way of understanding masculinity and femininity.
You are urging us to understand that the urge to flee is passive & female and the urge to fight is aggressive & male.

I realize this is the way most people understand it. And certainly there is the manifestation of aggression (an appearance of maleness & bravery) which is differentiated from ‘fleeing’ (appearance of femininity & cowardice)

However, what I am saying is that all actions that have been traditionally and stereotypically labeled as masculine are ultimately feminine in essence. Everything is rooted in femininity, and human history is a detailed record of God (masculinity/reason/rationality) struggling to be born in a Godless(feminine) world. Femininity is worldliness. That which is of this world is femininity. Masculinity (god, genius) is distinct from the world of dirt, although it flowers from it and lives in it. The flower is not the opposite of the dirt. Goodness is not the opposite of evil. The sun is not the opposite of the darkness surrounding it.


Aggression is essentially a frightened confused emotional act. It is femininity behind a mere posture of maleness. Aggressive males are aggressive in an attempt to fool themselves and others into thinking their aggression is proof of their strength and masculinity. Aggression is an imposter of masculinity, and it functions to breed a host of admirers, antipathies and imitators. Admiration, antipathy and imitation are of course feminine tendencies as well.

Can I free myself from aggression with agression? Or is agression dispelled via illumination/realization? Do I need agrgression to realize?

If you consider this quote, then perhaps so:

"Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Those who love their life will lose it, while those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be." John 12: 24 - Jesus

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14: 26 - Jesus


These quotes are good examples of why Femininity is just as important as masculinity.

Is Femminity is the essence of becoming rational?


So if that's the case, then the act of preaching the importance of masculinity and the inferiority of femininity is perhaps absurd.

And goodness, truth, rationality would be the act of going beyond yin-yang, male, female.

All of what I have said is simply an experiment and I don’t strongly believe in any of it.

I’m just playing with ideas that make a bit of sense.

Here’s a quote:

Nature shows that with the growth of intelligence comes increased capacity for pain, and it is only with the highest degree of intelligence that suffering reaches its supreme point.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

Would the growth of intelligence be the growth in masculinity? And would be the increase in suffering be the increase of femininity? This increase of pain? What is the function of this increase in pain? Does it bring more compassion? In my experience, seeing my 'self/world' more honestly is initially tremendously painful for me, but then afterwards, I am much more compassionate and motivated to serve the well being of humanity.

MG: In any case, I think it's kind of vague to say that someone as a whole is masculine or feminine without giving some sort of attributive qualification.

When you say ‘attributive qualification’………do you mean ‘distinguishing one thing from another?’ If so, well, I thought the whole point of this thread was to understand the difference between femininity and masculinity. What you want is what I’m doing.

Ultimately, after all I have stated, I am still confused. I just wanted to play an interesting angle. I’ve done my best to point to attributes of femininity. I’ve played the angle I thought was most interesting….and I remain uncertain.

MG: But, since we're on the Genius Forum talking about wisdom, I suppose it was kind of a weak point to make since masculinity and femininity are almost always used in regards to the pursuit of wisdom here.

A friend of mine wanted to know why the people of this forum assume that masculinity means rationality, genius....
My answer was that: the first great philosophers were males, and because they discovered females to be so resistant to intellectual life, they just logically assumed……

perhaps that is why ‘God’ is used in a masculine context…

Anyways I’ll end this with more quotes:

The more unintelligent a man is, the less mysterious existence seems to him.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

(I don’t think the big QRS like that one much) hey QRS, what do you think of Schopenhauer anyways?


The difficulty is to try and teach the multitude that something can be true and untrue at the same time.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

[Matt Gregory]

MG: Take someone who decides to be a sage.

CP: I question whether that someone would be actually ‘deciding’. I don’t think someone decides to be what they are. But I do realize it’s a common convenient figure of speech to use the word decide - - so please pardon my nit-pickidy-ness.

MG: They decide to the degree that they want to make a change to what they are.

CP: Yes but ‘wanting’ to change what one is, is not a choice. It is an involuntary response to suffering/discontent - -which is not a choice. One ‘is’ negative (involuntarily) and from this negative state there in an involuntarily urge, a ‘want’ for the positive. What is the positive? It is whatever one is conditioned to believe it is. Conditioning is an involuntary process as well. The process of conditioning involves certain degrees of doubt, worry, anxiety, awareness and belief, all of which are not choices, they are simply symptoms of what we are, and what we are is not a choice.
There is no decision, no choice. Only an involuntary process that we call living.

Nevertheless, he chooses to be a sage and this distinguishes him from someone who doesn't make that choice. His choice may be caused, leaving him no choice but to make the choice, but I'm not talking about the choice, I'm using the choice to describe the type of person I'm talking about.

MG: He starts out ignorant, so he's naturally physical aggressive to some extent, which would be masculine.

CP: The whole point of my post was to tackle assumptions like these. My first post talked about the Christian crusades, witch burning, and bombings of Iraq (all acts of aggression). Wouldn’t you say aggression is animal impulse overriding reason and logic? And wouldn’t you agree that animal impulse is actually feminine rather than masculine?

MG: Well, I was trying to focus on one particular attribute, physical aggression, without having to consider other ones, like what the impulse is.

CP: Isn’t that just like trying to understand a tree by only studying its branches while ignoring its roots? You cannot understand the branches of a tree without seeing them as undivided from the roots.
If you divide aggression from what is essentially its essence (impulse) then you are not understanding aggression. Instead one is simply fooling oneself in to thinking one knows, when really one is confused.

I'm not trying to understand aggression, I'm trying to distinguish between masculinity and femininity. Aggression is just an example (and a poor one at that, evidently, but I'll try to work with it). If all of the impulse is removed from the concept of aggression, it basically means "active", so just substitute the word "active" when I use "aggression" and I think that will clarify what I'm trying to say.

MG: The idea is that it's a more precise way to think about it.

CP: Over-sharpen the blade and the edge soon becomes blunt. In other words, keep your distance; if you look too closely you become lost. I am not saying one should have a fine eye for detail, but after examining as close as you can…..don’t forget to step back.

I hope I can demonstrate to you that I am stepping back.

MG: But I was thinking, you could take it further and judge each individual action as masculine and feminine instead of lumping them all together and judging them, in which case you would have aggressive actions and passive actions.

CP: Don’t fool yourself into thinking your ‘taking things further’. What your calling for is a very conventional way of understanding masculinity and femininity.
You are urging us to understand that the urge to flee is passive & female and the urge to fight is aggressive & male.

No, I didn't mean it in that way because I was thinking of the concept of aggression without the impulse. So, it was a mistake on my part to call it "aggression". Sorry about that. But if the impulse is removed from consideration, then fighting and fleeing would both be considered "aggressive" because action is being taken and activity is masculine. The opposite would be to just passively stand there and do nothing.

CP: I realize this is the way most people understand it. And certainly there is the manifestation of aggression (an appearance of maleness & bravery) which is differentiated from ‘fleeing’ (appearance of femininity & cowardice)

However, what I am saying is that all actions that have been traditionally and stereotypically labeled as masculine are ultimately feminine in essence. Everything is rooted in femininity, and human history is a detailed record of God (masculinity/reason/rationality) struggling to be born in a Godless(feminine) world. Femininity is worldliness. That which is of this world is femininity. Masculinity (god, genius) is distinct from the world of dirt, although it flowers from it and lives in it. The flower is not the opposite of the dirt. Goodness is not the opposite of evil. The sun is not the opposite of the darkness surrounding it.

Aggression is essentially a frightened confused emotional act. It is femininity behind a mere posture of maleness. Aggressive males are aggressive in an attempt to fool themselves and others into thinking their aggression is proof of their strength and masculinity. Aggression is an imposter of masculinity, and it functions to breed a host of admirers, antipathies and imitators. Admiration, antipathy and imitation are of course feminine tendencies as well.

This is what I consider to be "looking too closely that you become lost". You're trying to incorporate every detail into the definitions of masculinity and femininity, but I'm just trying to isolate a single thing and apply the basic principle to it. Once it can be applied to one thing, it can be applied to anything. Operating from a basic principle is what I consider to be "stepping back". It's stepping back in a logical sense.

MG: In any case, I think it's kind of vague to say that someone as a whole is masculine or feminine without giving some sort of attributive qualification.

CP: When you say ‘attributive qualification’………do you mean ‘distinguishing one thing from another?’

I mean pointing out one particular attribute a person has and applying the masculine/feminine categories to it. For example, take a person who sits around and thinks a lot, trying very hard to understand reality. Sitting around is passive, so I would label that "feminine". Thinking is active, so I would label that "masculine".

Another example: a woman shopping for a dress, searching every store in town for one that doesn't make her look fat. Her searching would be active, trying on many dresses and judging each one to see if she looks fat in it, so her running around would be active and masculine. But the mental process behind her search are the vague notions of "looking fat", "will so-and-so like it", "does it look too much like so-and-so's", "this one reminds me of such-and-such" and things like that. So the thought process that arrived at these criteria would be passive, because they're vague and ill-formed ideas. They're not even ideas really, they're just feelings. So the thought process would be feminine.

How about one more: a man who needs a gray suit and goes out and buys the first gray suit he sees. His search for the suit would be feminine, since he just passively went with the first one. But the thought process behind it would be masculine because he had a distinct category in mind for the suit. Even though his category was general, it wasn't vague or ill-formed because it allowed him to clearly distinguish between the suits he wanted to buy and suits he didn't want to buy, so the criteria for the suit was actively thought out and clarified.

[MKFaizi]

Sages aren't male or female in nature, although their bodies may be one or the other.

Does this mean you can suck your own dick?

Hot damn. I reckon you should run for president. What the US needs is a president who can suck his own dick. As long as we have a president who can fellatio himself, we have no need to expend the young lives of soldiers over bullshit agenda. Viagra rules. Keep the cumbag in the Oval Orifice where he belongs.

Given your enlightened state, I am surprised that you have not written more here rather than tootin' your considerable horn on the Brothel.

You are qualified enlightened. Stop sucking your dick and come up for air.

How can you say that sages are not male or female in nature?

By nature, a sage is male.

Define male.

Faizi

[Leyla Shen]

Cory,

Do you think the greek society was less feminine than our societies today? What are some examples of ‘not-as-feminized’ cultures, past and present?

Whilst those are interesting questions, and I may indeed investigate them out of such an interest, I don’t think they will produce anything philosophically fruitful. An historic account of events is not necessary to the point, which was a philosophical demonstration of how the feminisation of society is possible.

Do you disagree with that point?

I heard that in Switzerland, women voted against their right to vote.
Is this true?
Switzerland is a very well run place. While America on the other hand…….

As far as I know, women won the right to vote there in the 70s and those voting against it were women who believed that their place was in the home.

Would you say it is less well run since then and, if so, in what ways?

Well, some women go after the more intellectual fellows. However, this may be because the more confident stereotypical guys are already taken up by the more stereotypical females (nice body, shallow thoughts)...[etc. and so on until the Socrates bit]

Yes. So, beyond the notion that all things are caused, potential is potential - no matter its direction. The girl who stands in front of the mirror worshipping her reflection will only ever have that same potential for truth unless, of course, some cataclysmic event causes her to change. But, though you have written much, I don’t feel like you’ve answered my question. Perhaps I answered it for myself, or did I miss something? If I have missed something, just say so and I'll be happy to review.

...but would she have married him if he hadn’t won awards, gained attention, and was employed by people with lots of power and money? No, probably not. That's why women don’t go after sages unless there was some sort of consensus that the sage was a special, great man ( see Jiddu Krishnamurti).

I am not physically attracted to Russell Crowe. I think he’s ugly.

I have not really read many philosophical texts. My only knowledge of JK is of references to his name on this forum. Accordingly, you may have to elaborate his ideas rather than reference his name.

A sage can easily become perceived as a rock star if he generates a big enough following. Only when a sage has attracted numbers, will a female be drawn to him.

Don’t you mean to say that only when a sage has attracted numbers, will a feminine person be drawn to him?

I would agree with this.

I would also say that is a sure sign that this man is not, in fact, a sage. Sages are not interested in “generating a big enough following.” Since sagehood is precisely about solitude and reflection, this would be a sure sign of his impiety. True sages do not attract followers, though they may suffer them on occasion.

Women like numbers. Men too of course. But men become miserable a lot more easier than women, and thus will have more passion to go beyond the ways of the world.

Men are, in fact, both more feminine and masculine than women?

Of course there are other reasons why men seem to be more inclined to aspire for understanding.

Like what?

Overall, I am saying that the more athletic, more brutal jocks and air-headed ditzy women are cursed by what appears to be a fortune – raw sexual appeal.

So, you are saying that those who have this raw sexual appeal need make no effort at all to think and reason as their survival is guaranteed - since the very thing which drives the masculine, that is - femininity (impulse/instinct) - has been so successfully encoded in their DNA that the faculty of reason and the ability to think has been almost entirely coded out?

What percentage of society would they comprise? If such people are a minority, what is it that truly grants them such an accursed fortune? The suffering of ugliness?

They’re aesthetic sexual attractiveness keeps them animalistic………..whereas the not so physically attractive have no choice to become more rational.

Well, not necessarily. There is scientific rationalism, which is feminine outside of an understanding of Absolute Truth.

And as for beautiful people who are rational? Perhaps their unusual intellectual ability combined with good looks is due do highly unusual environmental influences (basically - - just plain luck).

Well, causality, yes. It’s only luck from the perspective of one who is attached to the idea of physical beauty.

I know there are exceptions to everything I said, and I suppose I am counting on readers to point them out, otherwise my post would be too long - -although this one seems to be becoming too long regardless.

Ah, have you ever heard of Vimala Thakar? She is perhaps the only female sage I have ever heard of. A phenomenal women. I would call her a sage. Not sexually attractive, although not ugly.

I will endeavour to look her up soon. But, on what grounds exactly do you consider her a sage?

More later.

[Cory Duchesne]

Vimala thakar

After reading about her, you will probably feel that she is not a sage. (due to your notions of what a sage is).

I read one of her books 'blossoms of friendship' (you can get it on amazon) - and it was very high caliber.

I probably shoudnt be calling people sages quite so readily. But she is really quite remarkable.

read about her here:

http://www.wie.org/j19/vimala.asp