The QRS Viewpoint is Crystal Clear.I believe that I understand your real point, and I don't think it's really about women (well, for you specifically it might be), and if I understand you correctly, then I agree with your point.
I recognize the difference between what the author of a statement states and the interpretation of an author's statement by another person. Taking you at your word is a totally different matter. I hope that people communicate honestly, but only when truth is self evident do I totally accept it. I will go along with the paradigm that most people will probably communicate reasonably honestly to the best of their ability because deception ultimatly hurts the deceiver more than it hurts the deceived. Sometimes a person's word is not true merely because he is mistaken; maybe he received wrong information, or maybe his logic is faulty.Read what we say, and take us at our word.
The way that the above was written, it seems that you are saying that all women are almost completely unconcious (as opposed to almost all women are completely unconcious). Unless you know all women, I doubt your authority to judge either of those as true.frank wrote:
Are Women unconcious?
Kevin replied:
Almost completely.
and:
Women are capable of enlightenment to the degree they are conscious.
"have been" indicates past, and you indicated about possibilities for the future. I doubt that you know all women in the present, therefore I doubt the validity of your assumption.Kevin also wrote:
There may have been an enlightened woman at some time in history. And there may be one sometime in the future. Who knows?
You might be surprised one day Kev, to realise that many, many Women understand everything you are saying in their own way..
Whereas some men want to withdraw from the Drama and seek freedom by that method.
What I've noticed, these Women re-enter the Drama and generate a Story, put together an Act in order to help improve things...they look for possibilities to Nurture others...to gather others about under a positive Story that connects up the dots...
They realise the emptiness of Attachments and even if they have 'things'...they are not attached...
DQ: If I were to stand up for the values of sanity and non-attachment in this society and point out the madness of this relentless obsession with trees
EI: I believe that I understand your real point, and I don't think it's really about women (well, for you specifically it might be), and if I understand you correctly, then I agree with your point.
I've noticed that I may act less sanely when I am in love, and it is obvious that a lot of people act insanely when they are in love.
What is the difference?There are things that I rather dislike about the state of being in love and have sometimes had the unintelligent wish that there was just love, and never the state of being "in love."
I now believe that there is the possibility of being in love and not participating in the insanity of the state. To do that, it would take judicious allocation of feelings, and the ability to dismiss or let go of feelings at appropriate times. For example, to "forget" that one is in love when it is more appropriate to be concentrating on work, and to dismiss the state of being in love when it contributes to painful feelings (which are often a result of looking at something illogically).
So can joining a fundamentalist religion. What about the harmful consequences of falling in love (or joining a fundamentalist religion)? When people become attached to mirages, they immediately cultivate a defensive mentality and start behaving violently towards one another. All war is ultimately created by love. Most of the misery in the world is ultimately caused by love. It is by far the single biggest source of suffering in the world.Love can also be a powerful motivator to do good things, and it is a state that can both make life more enjoyable and contribute to one's health and longevity as a result of the biochemical state that it induces.
I'm not sure. Which target are you going for?Do you think that I am on target David?
Pessimist.Quote:
EI: I now believe that there is the possibility of being in love and not participating in the insanity of the state. To do that, it would take judicious allocation of feelings, and the ability to dismiss or let go of feelings at appropriate times. For example, to "forget" that one is in love when it is more appropriate to be concentrating on work, and to dismiss the state of being in love when it contributes to painful feelings (which are often a result of looking at something illogically).
DQ:Well, this is just a case of trying to juggle the insanity so that it doesn't disrupt one's life too much. Such a strategy always fails sooner or later, of course.
The harmful consequences are from the application of illogic. The obvious cure is logic. (please see my post under "forum useless for enlightenment" exemplifying a couple dating to see an application of logic to emotions)EI:Love can also be a powerful motivator to do good things, and it is a state that can both make life more enjoyable and contribute to one's health and longevity as a result of the biochemical state that it induces.
DQ:So can joining a fundamentalist religion. What about the harmful consequences of falling in love (or joining a fundamentalist religion)?
Well done, it is.Have you noticed, frank, that you only ever start affirming the value of having a purpose - and in so doing, temporarily ceasing your giggling "Empty and Meaningless" act - whenever women are mentioned? The erstwhile detached laugher at all things suddenly transforms into a knight in shining armour, desperately riding off to defend the honour of Woman.
It's friggin' Hilarious.
Didn't Nature build that into our Psyches in order to get the next generation born...I would say that everyone, without exception, acts insanely when in love. To be in love is to be attached to a mirage, and to be attached to a mirage is, by definition, insane.
DQ: I would say that everyone, without exception, acts insanely when in love. To be in love is to be attached to a mirage, and to be attached to a mirage is, by definition, insane.
f: Didn't Nature build that into our Psyches in order to get the next generation born...
Falling in Love 'happens', primarily to the young.
I did walk away, actually. The only time I fell in love was with a girl called Tracey, back in my early twenties. I ended up leaving her after a couple of years, even though we were still very much in love, because I wanted to focus more heavily on philosophy. I was very much inspired by Kierkegaard at the time, particularly his decision to break off his engagement with Regina in similar circumstances (I cannot thank you enough, Soren!).It happened to you didn't it?
You didn't design it when it happened did you?
When the 'bug' bit...you didn't walk away.
I've already mentioned in this thread that I have learnt quite a bit from a number of women - for example, Sue Hindmarsh, Celia Green, Valerie Solanas, and Esther Vilar.Because you are caught up in an 'emotional repulsion' concerning Women...you've become unable to listen to them...
I'm not saying that as fact...is it possible?
Now I know you really are taking the piss.I did walk away, actually. The only time I fell in love was with a girl called Tracey, back in my early twenties. I ended up leaving her after a couple of years, even though we were still very much in love, because I wanted to focus more heavily on philosophy. I was very much inspired by Kierkegaard at the time, particularly his decision to break off his engagement with Regina in similar circumstances (I cannot thank you enough, Soren!).
Frank, what a hilarious drama you've constructed around QRS and Women!frank wrote:The QRS Viewpoint is Crystal Clear.
What they are postulating is:
Women are unconcious.
Women are incapable of Enlightenment.
frank
Well done Jason....you've got it!Frank, what a hilarious drama you've constructed around QRS and Women!
It's got all the hallmarks of a Hollywood Blockbuster.
The Shepherd(Frank), the Flock(Women) and the Big, Bad Wolf(QSR)....it's a scream, totally comedic.
Rescuer, Persecutor, Victim.
Drama, Story...
neural, interactive simulation transposing itself over 'empty and meaningless'.
Made to appear Real by the Mind.
A resolution to the Human's basic existential dilemma about what to do during waking hours.
It looks like Tragedy but it really does have a Comedic element to it...at least to this Observer...
It's empty and meaningless...
frank first wrote:Wherever there's a Mind...it's structuring 'Reality' in a Story that has those elements...
But how could you ever see beyond stories, and how could you know that there was a Void? As long as you had a mind you would always be creating a story, and that means the "Void" would be just another plot device in a story, no fundamentally different than the "Rescuer", "Persecutor" or "Victim".frank then wrote: There's a Void and we put the Story in the Void.
Hey, Pye:Pye wrote:.
The synonymous association of "unconsciousness" with "femininity" makes for some rhetorical slop apparently useful to many who think here. On the one hand, it means to equate one human quality (unconsciousness) with a[n assumed] set of qualities (femininity); and on the other hand, it equates a human quality (unconsciousness) with a gender itself (females). The slop from A-is-included-in-B to A-actually-means-C depends upon the rhetorical intent of the speaker. This gives the terms in general and the genius forum in particular a safehouse for dressing-up misogyny, as well as a rhetorical devise for backing out of it. It serves another logistical, and actually more serious hiccup in thinking I'll get to in a second.
Here are some further absurdities from this rhetorical devise: it assumes that there are complementaries in place [masculine/feminine] and that these have been definitively fixed by some trick of metaphysical authority, rather than being a device of our own [social] construction (so in this, it is an invitation in itself to a lack of consciousness).
Further, it seeks to destroy one half of that complementary, on the assumption that the other half will remain intact (if this doesn't offend the laws of logic, it at least offends the laws of physics).
It is the western dualistic thinking in its blindest form: of all complementaries, one is always "better" than the other categorically, as opposed to situationally, thus trouncing any fluid wisdom one gets from the knowing when of the Tao.
Additionally, the supreme status accorded consciousness is much like Nietzsche's complaint about Socrates: Since Socrates, everything in the world must be intelligible to be of any worth. And all of this is deeply embedded in the deep mists of man's psychic association between women/nature: both are chaotic, destructive forces in need of intelligibility and control. It keeps one's head back in these mists and fears.
There's more (I'm pressed for time). Let me get right to the most glaring pathology of bad faith in all of this: it imputes a quality to the thing that actually belongs to the person addressing it.
For example, the statement that "females are unconscious" is more accurately rendered "I get unconscious around females."
The statement that "females are incapable of enlightenment" actually means "I am incapable of enlightened thought and behavior around females."
The statement that "women are flesh," is really "when I'm around women, I can only think of them as flesh."
It says that "Your use of pink and blue font indicates an unserious, unconcentrated mind," instead of saying "My mind can't concentrate or be serious around pink or blue font."
The list of these items of bad faith goes on endlessly. In the words of the admirably hard-assed Simone de Beauvoir, the problem with women has always been a problem with the man. It is not that "intellectual admiration for a woman is impossible (firstly) without her thinking of Love" (secondly) -- it is "I am incapable of feeling intellectual admiration for a woman without falling in love with her." I think one of these guys has already slipped seamlessly into a demonstration of this here.
etc.
etc.
etc.
This excellently divisive bit of rhetoric (femininity=unconsciousness) that survives so persistently here serves many conscious and unconscious purposes on the part of its users. Chief among these is an intellectual justification of sorts for misogyny. And misogyny thus dressed can escape the glaring examination of itself as incommensurate with enlightenment - an incommensurability that cannot position itself within reason in any way whatsoever. Here's my little equation: misogyny = self-loathing. Properly stated, it is not "I hate women," but rather, "I hate what I become around them." Focus upon the first part of this corollary serves the convenient purpose of avoiding confrontation with the second, passes the blame in a blazing act of bad faith onto the thing itself in some misguided and unconscious deference to Cause and Effect.
In other words, the possibility of enlightenment or non-enlightenment for women as women . . . is really asking after the possibility of enlightenment for men as "men." If one wishes to hold exclusively onto all of the category known as "masculine," one has already shot oneself in the foot.
.
