A MAN NEVER ARGUES WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - OH BUT I INSIST

[sky]

this title is a bit 'tongue in cheek

i wanted a place to address the contradictions i see here but CONTRADICTIONS was another context beyond this forum

david visited another forum and was very dogmatic that only men can be geniuses/enlightened

naturally i challenged him as i am a woman of intellectual bent prone to solitude and not enthralled by romantic love

also i have studied eastern philosophies all my life i was raised in the far east so it was actually more natural to me than western even though i am a blond blue eyed american girl

i mention this as on another forum someone thought i was oriental and also because this information gives some context to my general conditioning and 'place' as in where i am coming from

if it were not for this exchange

sky quoting

". . . from the point of view of Enlightenment it is only 'weak minded worldlings' who see gender as a barrier to attaining enlightenment."

ksolway

This is correct. Women who attain masculine qualities of mind, such as powerful discrimination, focus, consistency, depth, etc, have no barrier.

Just because a person is born as a woman is not a guarantee that they will not become wise. Weininger might have thought otherwise, but he can be forgiven. . . .

i would not be here for my intuition long ago led me to the believe that woman are extremely powerful and that men find this disturbing at the deepest level

ksolway

Women (unconsciousness) rule our world, there is no doubt about it.

Unconsciousness is extremely powerful. That is why so few people ever escape its grip.

Nothing can overcome Truth, but unconsciousness can overcome consciousness.

ah so i am right but there is more to know i am incomplete not because i have XX not XY but because just as any man might i do not have all the information

great i am always up for truthful information

also in the short time i have known kevin via the net he has given me philosophical insight which led to a number of means of overcoming long standing dilemmas in my personal experience of the world

practical applicable genius definitely works for me

a genius by the definition as enlightened i am not

but opaque unaware and unintelligent i also am not

nor is it in my nature to swallow any philosophy whole

so thus this thread

i see many contradictions

i see much that screams we are men and therefore are innately superior and all these men PROVE i am right by agreeing

and here is our idol a genius of geniuses weininger a man of the victorian era whose views on the woman of his day are still absolutely accurate to all women for all time

but i am willing to see if there is truth here without necessarily growing a beard

i was told by david that mozart was foolish in wasting his time on music

isuppose that mean michealangelo was also foolish wasting his time

yet i come to find that weininger committed suicide in the house where beethoven died whom weininger thought one of the greatest genius of all time

for those who are sensitive to any questioning of their idol i say if this is philosophy get over it

or if weininger is the 'god of your idolatry' then it is a religious cult and i already know of enough religions

i do not mean to offend anyone there is nothing of the personal in my attitude towards anyone here

nor will there be even though some members may choose to treat me like an empty minded barbie doll

in which case i will /may either decide you are an idiot and drop you off my radar or i may mercilessly challenge every word and/or phrase that seems contradictory

the woman weininger describes is not me even though i come with this terrible impediment

besides being a woman my grandmother was a fashion designer and is through her that my background is of the type not dissimilar to

kelly jones

He was very well-educated, probably courteous, wealthy, well-groomed, and fastidious about hygiene.

so though i am interested in this forum i have alreay been spending too much time here and i can see i will not be able to keep up with all the threads

thus i started this in order to be able to extrapolate from the various threads and writings some of the contradictions i see and present them for anyone's insight

[Ankit Gupta]

I also felt a bias against females, in this forum and site. It seems that the sages here mean the masculine principle as the rational part, the feminine principle as the more intuitive emotional part. They are promoting the logical part, as the fast road to enlightenment. However, in my experience both portions of the brain need to be harmonized, and the emotional/irrational/intutive portion is not to be cut off as repressing it would keep one from the whole and harmonious experience. Hinduism is not a religion with a fixed set of dogmas so you can find citations to support any viewpoint. In many instances, the female is shown to be much wiser than the male despite the latter's great braggadacio. Further the god shiva is shown to have harmonized his male and female aspects to become the Ardhanarishvara:(Half male half female). Which is also a nod to the harmony of the left and half hemispheres of the brain.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Toomuwik/Ardhanarishvara/

PS:Could you try to write your posts in continuous paragraphs instead of one line at a time. It is much easier to read that way.

[Nick]

Sky,

I think the reason some people on this forum hold Weininger with such high regard is his fearlessness delving into the depths of human psychology. He was able to explain and articulate things in an unprecedented way. I have read his book "Sex & Character", and I must say, I was very impressed with the detail in which he described how the sexes interact with eachother. Although not everything he said is Absolute Truth, that isn't the reason he recieves his praise.

Ankit,

You can't logically harmonize the masculine and feminine aspects of your mind. That would be like saying you are perfectly conscious and unconscious, which is impossible. You can only be one or the other to varying degrees. Consciousness is achieved only when one begins to develop the masculine aspect of his character, and from there he can truly begin to understand Reality. This is not to say an anatomical female isn't capable of this. Afterall, there is no 100% masculine male, or 100% feminine female. But I do think the odds are against females more so than men since it is her nature to be feminine.

[sky]

i am sorry that it is difficult for you to read and normally i would try to accommodate you but after years of accommodating to academia this is a style which works for me

it may seem as mere sentences but they are actually thought bytes

hopefully in time you will perceive the rhythm and be more comfortable

I also felt a bias against females, in this forum and site. It seems that the sages here mean the masculine principle as the rational part, the feminine principle as the more intuitive emotional part. They are promoting the logical part, as the fast road to enlightenment.

yes i understand that male viewpoint not accept but understand but when it comes to this level

kelly jones

Human evolution created the distinction between thinkers and parasites: the former tend to focus on abstract problem-solving, paying little attention to cosmetics; the latter don't have the intellectual wherewithal to sustain themselves, so try to make themselves as attractive and indispensible as possible. And for whom is love and happiness most important.....?

i think it is ridiculous in this day and age and also a rather fantastic statement 'human evolution created the distinction between thinkers and parasites'

women today are so eager to be self sustaining and many certainly do have that form of intellectual power (whether or not they have the genius type) the last shuttle commander was a woman - i don't think revlon got her into the space program

ksolway

Being an astrophysicist, a scientist, or a chess player, doesn't make a woman masculine. All these tasks can be performed perfectly well without developing masculine traits.

Females are currently outperforming males in schools and Universitites, but that doesn't mean that women are becoming more rational. Rationality is deeper than all that - deeper than mathematics and science.

maybe so or maybe not re deep rationality but that a women because she happens to have good genes physically and is naturally 'beautiful' cannot have any level of intellect or any opportunity to be wise reminds me of the born again christian's belief if you don't read the bible you cannot know god

when i tell them i prefer the upanishads or the various sutras it is a similar attitude

only my way has validity

in weininger's work there is the prostitute or the mother both using allure to get what they want/need

or there is the lesbian

there were no dynamic beautiful brilliant women taking charge through her own efforts sovereignty was only inheritable as in queen victoria or queen elizabeth

the movie elizabeth was not queen elizabeth's life story it was the story of how she came into her sovereignty

how she realized that the decisions of her male advisers were often disastrous that after all she was queen and it was her prerogative to make decisions

However, in my experience both portions of the brain need to be harmonized, and the emotional/irrational/intutive portion is not to be cut off as repressing it would keep one from the whole and harmonious experience.

yes both jung and the i ching agree

Hinduism is not a religion with a fixed set of dogmas so you can find citations to support any viewpoint. In many instances, the female is shown to be much wiser than the male despite the latter's great braggadacio.

hinduism particularly yoga vashista/vedanta was my first serious study or religion though i was born christian

i will never forget the day alone on the eleventh tier of coulumbia university library with rows of loosely bound sanskrit texts which i dared not touch i found a slim volume titled

'shakti'

Further the god shiva is shown to have harmonized his male and female aspects to become the Ardhanarishvara:(Half male half female). Which is also a nod to the harmony of the left and half hemispheres of the brain.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Toomuwik/Ardhanarishvara/

and what does this say about the emergence of androgyny - unisexual clothing and women in sports etc.

when i had supershort hair an older man said 'you might as well be a boy' but the young men thought it was 'cool'

the older man wanted long hair long fingernails high heels make up and a dress - i was giving nothing

[sky]

nick

i am not denigrating weininger in any way

my issue is that was in the victorian age

to hold to it as gospel in this age is my issue

prior to patriarchy there was matriarchy

'times change and with them their demands'

freud a bit earlier than weininger was promoting hysteria as a woman problem

it seems to me that women are a problem for men

and men are a problem for women though many do decieve themselves that man is their salvation

however woman much more easily 'get over' that idea now that her survival is no longer at stake

it seems to me women are a much deeper and troubling issue for men

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hinduism is not a religion with a fixed set of dogmas so you can find citations to support any viewpoint. In many instances, the female is shown to be much wiser than the male despite the latter's great braggadacio. Further the god shiva is shown to have harmonized his male and female aspects to become the Ardhanarishvara:(Half male half female). .

Ankit, Shiva is not about some harmony that produces some kind of enlightenment. It portrays a certain understanding of life itself in the eyes of the beholder; creation and destruction, both pulling and pushing the wheel of life.

Even philosophy is polarized like that: there's understanding appearing before a background of misunderstanding. Knowing against a background of not knowing.

But this understanding itself could be seen as a masculine property: the kingdom of heaven, descending on the realm of the Earth, who has her own 'wisdom' indeed, wheels that formed in millions of years of evolution. A primal wisdom of how to survive, procreate, socialize and gain in power and status. Don't underestimate the way it works in us all.

So a sage knows himself and knows his own wisdom in relation to the unconscious world. The male and female have no secrets to him but his own understanding and self-knowledge he knows to be male in essence. Its clarity produced by polarizing indeed.

[frank]

The point about the Genius Forum is that it is a Cult or Herd with a few small time, vaguely charismatic Leaders who provide the needy co-dependants with a 'reason' for their 'suffering'...
...as with the Xians who blamed the 'devil'..
...the Genius' blame 'Woman' or 'femininity'...

Cults recognise there are seekers with existential problems and provide these types with something outside themselves that is the Cause...

Now they have this 'thing' outside themselves to Project all their troubles on to...

It feels powerful, it feels good...and the existential problem is no longer present as long as the Herd sticks together...once the Herd breaks up...the problem returns.

The Leaders of Cults seem always to adorn themselves with sobriquets like sage...messiah...bwana...grand poobar or shit like that...

It's Hilarious.

It's some kind of Mother Complex with this outfit in that Work or Social Responsibility is despised...

...what is promulgated as the Spiritual Life is a systematic exploitation of Social Welfare programs...

...a lifetime of suckling on the 'teat' of Big Mother to get their money needs met...

The Game is something like 'hate you Mother'...'feed me Mother'.

afraid of the power of femininity...gotta shoot it down like gunslingers...or weineggers..

frank

[Kevin Solway]

the feminine principle as the more intuitive emotional part.

Men are not at all lacking in intuition. That is why all the greatest inventors, artists, writers, scientists, sages, and even cooks, are men.

Rather, it is women who are lacking in intuition. All they have are what Weininger calls "henids" - which are a kind of pre-thought - and don't even make the grade as intuitions.

god shiva is shown to have harmonized his male and female aspects

The masculine (active) and feminine (passive) aspects of reality are indeed harmonized, but this is an altogether different matter to the personalities of human males and females.

[Kevin Solway]

Cults recognise there are seekers with existential problems and provide these types with something outside themselves that is the Cause...

The difference is, we don't say that femininity is "outside".

Men are mostly feminine, and unconscious.

[frank]

Solway:

The difference is, we don't say that femininity is "outside".

There, you've said it..we...Cult.

bonding together to deal with a perceived 'enemy'...

Shepherd and Flock.

frank

[Kelly Jones]

the woman weininger describes is not me even though i come with this terrible impediment

besides being a woman my grandmother was a fashion designer and is through her that my background is of the type not dissimilar to kelly jones

Biological females have enormous difficulty in confronting the nature of woman. But they have to, if they want to progress spiritually.

I can't say whether your background and mine are similar or not. Perhaps. If you decide to stick around the forum, you might be interested in writing a short biographical sketch.

so though i am interested in this forum i have alreay been spending too much time here and i can see i will not be able to keep up with all the threads

Just read what interests you. You don't have to respond to everything. Better to have one good, quality thought than two rushed, emotional ones.

Now if only I could take my own advice.

Human evolution created the distinction between thinkers and parasites: the former tend to focus on abstract problem-solving, paying little attention to cosmetics; the latter don't have the intellectual wherewithal to sustain themselves, so try to make themselves as attractive and indispensible as possible. And for whom is love and happiness most important.....?


sky: i think it is ridiculous in this day and age and also a rather fantastic statement 'human evolution created the distinction between thinkers and parasites'

I categorise people into thinkers, who are deeply conscious of Ultimate Reality, and parasites, who are largely unconscious of anything. Women and children make up the parasites, which includes most biological males.

There are very few thinkers. It is quite an accurate description of humanity, in any age.

women today are so eager to be self sustaining and many certainly do have that form of intellectual power (whether or not they have the genius type) the last shuttle commander was a woman - i don't think revlon got her into the space program

More women are encouraged to take on positions of greater social responsibility, it's true. Yet nanophysicists with PhDs, heads of state, and professional philosophers are all extremely mediocre in intellect and character - regardless of sexuality.

Can you name an example of a deeply thoughtful and individual female, who loves wisdom, strives to abandon every trace of egotism from her life, and is not a social slave ? Do you have a portrait of her ?


[edited BBcode].

[frank]

It's got all the hallmarks of a Hollywood Blockbuster.

The Shepherd, the Flock and the Big, Bad Wolf.
Femininity as the Big, Bad Wolf...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.

To get in the Cubby House you have to persistently make Woman/Femininity wrong.

If you don't persistently make Woman/Feminity wrong...then the automatic rule comes in that you are Sissy/Feminine/Deluded/Unconcious/Unwise/Not- Sage.
How cute is that?...what an extraordinary application of Logic!

The only Meaning it has is as Activity.

A resolution to the Human's basic existential dilemma about what to do during waking hours.

How come every Cult Leader(s) puts pen to paper and declares the scribble as 'the greatest book that was ever written'...?

It's just a Cult Rule...a Form that defines Cult...a configuration...

Surely you can see the Hilarious Nature of all this?

C'mon laugh with me...it is incredibly funny.

frank

[Kelly Jones]

Hi Frank,

How come every Cult Leader(s) puts pen to paper and declares the scribble as 'the greatest book that was ever written'...?

This is the same as saying that knowing whether a "truth" is valid is important to you. So you also value reason.

You also admit that "femininity" is important to you. Evidently, you value truthfulness more than femininity. Since you wouldn't value femininity, if you thought it was irrational to do so, I'm really interested to know how you define femininity.

.

[Jason]

It's got all the hallmarks of a Hollywood Blockbuster.

The Shepherd, the Flock and the Big, Bad Wolf.
Femininity as the Big, Bad Wolf...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.

I assume you mean that the human mind projects meaning onto reality, but reality itself is "empy and meaningless". Is that right?

Even if you take that to be true, the mind is as much a part of reality as anything else. Therefore meaning, even it if is confined to the mind, is a part of reality - thus reality is not meaningless.

Also, if you say others are projecting meaning onto reality with their minds, wouldn't it be fair to say that you are projecting "empty and meaningless" onto reality with your mind?

Surely you can see the Hilarious Nature of all this?

C'mon laugh with me...it is incredibly funny.

frank

Have you ever met someone who giggles a lot? Some people have a defense mechanism whereby they laugh all the time as a way to block out the negative things in their life. I think you may have taken that defense mechanism and built it into a philosophical system. If you laugh at everything it helps to block out the pain. It also helps if everyone laughs with you, if you see someone else who is not laughing it could drag you out of your defensive state.

Somewhere beneath the laughter there is a hatred of what people are doing. My bet is that, amongst other things, you hate QSR and their anti-feminine messages and what you perceive as their cultish ways. Keep laughing or the hatred will surface and you will suffer.

Then again I could be way off.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason wrote:

Somewhere beneath the laughter there is a hatred of what people are doing. My bet is that, amongst other things, you hate QSR and their anti-feminine messages and what you perceive as their cult-creating ways. Keep laughing or the hatred will surface and you will suffer.

Then again I could be way off.

Frank’s problem is that he sincerely believes that the discussions in this board do nothing. He believes that this is all just empty and meaningless babble, and perhaps he has a point in that many times pointing out someone’s contradictions and hypocrisies doesn’t do anything because they are too emotionally weak to face the truth.

However I believe that there are hungry seekers who stumble across this forum and some do have contradictions in their thinking that can be corrected if they have the sufficient intellectual/emotional capacity to face the humiliation of being in error.

Frank has firmly come to the conclusion that there is no one to help, but I believe he is mistaken.

I believe most people cannot be helped, but there are a very small number of people that can be pushed along because they have the correct genetic/environmental disposition to go all the way as thinkers.

A fellow thinker’s contradictions can be corrected if they are open enough to face the truth of their error.

The main problem I see in this forum is that many of us come to the strong conclusion that we are already enlightened sages and this prevents us from actually exploring and discovering something new in the moment with our fellow humans.

This conclusion that we already know everything is a defense mechanism that prevents us from actively engaging with our fellow thinkers in the moment.

An unknowing humility is vitally essential.

Frank has taken this limited idea that there is no one to teach and exploited it to its fullest capacity so that he can sit on the sidelines and believe he is the most superior thinker in this entire forum.

The tragedy is that many people in here feel they are the most superior thinker in this forum and this prevents them from actually exploring and coming up with new realizations and insights.

The fear to actively engage is rooted in the fear of being perceived as inferior because one has an image of themselves as being far superior to all those around them.

Now Frank will probably defend his position because he is incapable of admitting that there are a small number of thinkers that can actually benefit from reading another’s psychological critique of their own behavior.

If someone has the intelligence to point out my contradictions then I'm grateful because I'm now less confused in realizing how I have been in error.

You cannot pull yourself out of contradiction alone, you need relationship.

for instance: how can I fix a tendency that I am not aware of? I can only fix what I am aware of and if I am not aware of something then my only hope is to reply on the observations of someone else who is aware of what I'm not aware of.

[sky]

he woman weininger describes is not me even though i come with this terrible impediment

besides being a woman my grandmother was a fashion designer and is through her that my background is of the type not dissimilar to kelly jones

you misread me your name was above the quote on weininger you made


this one

He was very well-educated, probably courteous, wealthy, well-groomed, and fastidious about hygiene.

i come from as feminine a background as is probably possible but in an age before 'feminism' my maternal grandmother took those qualities of femininity and turned them into a business which provided her family with a really lovely lifestyle

thus she was not only self sustaining but others sustaining including me

btw i would agree to and be interested in short biographical sketches but i will not post my picture on the net as i have already had internet stalkers that went as far as hacking my msn im account

here is not just here

here is the entire www

I categorise people into thinkers, who are deeply conscious of Ultimate Reality, and parasites, who are largely unconscious of anything. Women and children make up the parasites, which includes most biological males.

There are very few thinkers. It is quite an accurate description of humanity, in any age.

ah now that is quite different than saying 'human evolution created....."

and i agree pretty much especially by including the biological males my teacher of vedanta would use the term the 'masses' and yes few people are thinkers not only because they are not so inclined but it is dangerous if you ever express your thoughts

galileo for example even socrates 'went too far'

More women are encouraged to take on positions of greater social responsibility, it's true. Yet nanophysicists with PhDs, heads of state, and professional philosophers are all extremely mediocre in intellect and character - regardless of sexuality.

Can you name an example of a deeply thoughtful and individual female, who loves wisdom, strives to abandon every trace of egotism from her life, and is not a social slave ? Do you have a portrait of her ?

encourage is a bit quaint to a young woman of the 21st century it is a given and i have the err equipment to play it either way

i could let a man pamper me or i can make my own way

i choose make my own way even though i love being pampered

why do i make that choice

a. i do not want to be dependent
b. i have a strong taste for adventure

furthermore when you use 'all' it weakens your argument in my eyes as

a. you don't know them all nor could you
b. all/always and none/never are rarely true in sweeping generalizations

'can i name an example....'

i don't know but then i don't know about the men either though as i said before i would give kevin the benefit of the doubt

why

because he in a few words cut through one of the deepest conundrums of my life and he does not disallow that i a female can/will become wise

but even he i don't totally agree with

i think i have intuition other people have remarked on it as remarkable or maybe as one phil prof said you (i) could just be extremely acute at inference

so kevin please define intuition

cosmic prostitute

However I believe that there are hungry seekers who stumble across this forum and some do have contradictions in their thinking that can be corrected if they have the sufficient intellectual/emotional capacity to face the humiliation of being in error.

I believe most people cannot be helped, but there are a very small number of people that can be pushed along because they have the correct genetic/environmental disposition to go all the way as thinkers.

A fellow thinker’s contradictions can be corrected if they are open enough to face the truth of their error.

The main problem I see in this forum is that many of us come to the strong conclusion that we are already enlightened sages and this prevents us from actually exploring and discovering something new in the moment with our fellow humans.

This conclusion that we already know everything is a defense mechanism that prevents us from actively engaging with our fellow thinkers in the moment.

An unknowing humility is vitally essential.

The tragedy is that many people in here feel they are the most superior thinker in this forum and this prevents them from actually exploring and coming up with new realizations and insights.

The fear to actively engage is rooted in the fear of being perceived as inferior because one has an image of themselves as being far superior to all those around them.

If someone has the intelligence to point out my contradictions then I'm grateful because I'm now less confused in realizing how I have been in error.

You cannot pull yourself out of contradiction alone, you need relationship.

yes

'An unknowing humility is vitally essential.'

now that is wise

and as for frank there is this point in his thinking

in the classic argument on the existence of god 'thinkers' are often put in the position of instead attempting to prove he does not exist and failing that concluding therefore he does exist

similarly

the attempt to prove men are/can (be) geniuses by proving women are/can not

actually it only proves to me that for men woman is always on his mind whether it be craving or evading

the only truth i subscribe to is that truth is the most important thing

and i figured that out all by myself long ago pre puberty

and i offer myself as proof

i am a young beautiful brilliant educated talented female in the 21st century in the usa

i can have pretty much anything i want pretty much for the asking

i got this computer free by e mailing micheal dell about a year ago that his customer service was beyond ludicrous and it was costing him a fortune and me as a customer and since dell could not get it together to tell me the parts i needed and send them to me and since they had wasted ten days of my time they should just send me a new computer because that they could do

and they did and further i read last week that dell was putting $150 million into improving their customer service(i think they owe me a hefty consultant's fee)

yet i am here

why

because i want truth

and if it can be found here

great

[La Verdad]

ksolway
Quote:

This is correct. Women who attain masculine qualities of mind, such as powerful discrimination, focus, consistency, depth, etc, have no barrier.

Just because a person is born as a woman is not a guarantee that they will not become wise. Weininger might have thought otherwise, but he can be forgiven. . . .

I agree you in theory though not in practice - there is nothing physically barring a woman from genius.
Similarly nothing holds back a lion from adopting a diet strictly of vegtables, though there are no vegetarian lions, and there are no female genii - it simply isn't in their nature.

Sky:
i was told by david that mozart was foolish in wasting his time on music

isuppose that mean michealangelo was also foolish wasting his time

The thoughts of a great philosopher are worth more than the great work of art, because the former lasts far longer, and because morality is more important than aesthetics.

Mozart did not 'waste' his time, he simply chose to pursuit of the High over pursuit of the Highest, and still stands far above most.

Sky:
there were no dynamic beautiful brilliant women taking charge through her own efforts

The beautiful[..?] brillant take charge woman is largely a character of fiction.
Unless by 'take charge' you mean in the sense Jenna Jameson has taken charge of her finances. That breed of woman exists.

Women can succeed in the entrepreneurial and political realms, (although it's much rarer in the latter). This proves woman can be clever and practical, though it doesn't prove she has a soul.

The genius cares nothing for the material, or for a high station in life (e.g. space shuttle commander?/head of state).

Either he is an artist, and his passion for the Aesthetic drives him to produce high works of art, or he is a philosopher and his obsession with Morality and his inner life force him to live in the way he has found most ethical.

In both molds we find no trace of choice or freedom - that is why the tirelessly rehashed excuse of male oppression as the reason for the nonexistance of female genius is so nonsensical and utterly off the mark.

This is why a deaf man created the greatest piece of music in history, why Michelangelo would sculpt in a pair of shoes, and take them off months later with skin and blood peeling away with them, or while (dazed from paint fumes) fell of a scaffold near the top of the Sistine, and just brushed himself off and went right back to work; and likewise why men like Jesus, Socrates, Weininger, and Cato the Younger would rather die often horrible deaths than live in a manner or a world incongruous with their conscience.

Though honestly I'm still stuck on the fact you felt the trait 'beautiful' at all relevant to this discussion.

frank:
To get in the Cubby House you have to persistently make Woman/Femininity wrong.

There is nothing wrong with Woman & her femininity.

The relationship of:

feminine | masculine

is as that of

drunk | sober

similarly, being drunk isn't wrong - though we long to be something more.

[sky]

la verdad

The beautiful[..?] brillant take charge woman is largely a character of fiction.
Unless by 'take charge' you mean in the sense Jenna Jameson has taken charge of her finances. That breed of woman exists.

please (i had to google jenna jameson) no i was thinking more of the masses of woman who have taken charge of their own lives (without selling their bodies)

as first comes self sufficiency then philosophy and women are doing a brilliant job of self sufficiency they are outperforming the men at the highest levels of academia no one can dispute that without making a fool of themselves

Women can succeed in the entrepreneurial and political realms, (although it's much rarer in the latter). This proves woman can be clever and practical, though it doesn't prove she has a soul.

but the men who err provide for or are provided for by jenna jameson do

The genius cares nothing for the material, or for a high station in life (e.g. space shuttle commander?/head of state).

Either he is an artist, and his passion for the Aesthetic drives him to produce high works of art, or he is a philosopher and his obsession with Morality and his inner life force him to live in the way he has found most ethical.

In both molds we find no trace of choice or freedom - that is why the tirelessly rehashed excuse of male oppression as the reason for the nonexistance of female genius is so nonsensical and utterly off the mark.

This is why a deaf man created the greatest piece of music in history,he was not always deaf and he used the vibrations from the piano to plug into his previous knowledge when not deaf why Michelangelo would sculpt in a pair of shoes, and take them off months later with skin and blood peeling away with them, or while (dazed from paint fumes) fell of a scaffold near the top of the Sistine, and just brushed himself off and went right back to work; and likewise why men like Jesus jesus died if in fact he died in order to fulfill a 'drama' which illustrated a spiritual message - he was a living parable and he was an avatar/bodhisattva which is not something anyone male or female can become if one is not born one Socrates, Weininger, and Cato the Younger would rather die often horrible deaths than live in a manner or a world incongruous with their conscience.

socrates killed himself because his choice was death or not to teach he was not disallowed his conscience amongst his intimates

Though honestly I'm still stuck on the fact you felt the trait 'beautiful' at all relevant to this discussion. because in another thread it was allowed that a woman might become a genius but only if she were of the masculine type physically

and i am ready to throw up at your mention of a porn star as the example of beauty what about beauty not for sale can you name one

weininger was for celibacy not using women to 'get off' on/over whilst claiming/pursuing genius

verdad

[sky]

There is nothing wrong with Woman & her femininity.

The relationship of:

feminine | masculine

is as that of

drunk | sober

similarly, being drunk isn't wrong - though we long to be something more.

so are the soul ful men drunk or sober for the most part when they visit jenna jameson or others of her 'breed'

oh poor pathetic me a female since i am excluded from genius i think i will commit suicide in some dramatic fashion but where

let me see jim morrison's grave near balzac's

of i've got it at graceland [/sarcasm]

[sky]

as first comes self sufficiency then philosophy and women are doing a brilliant job of self sufficiency they are outperforming the men at the highest levels of academia no one can dispute that without making a fool of themselves

thought

if women can go from almost total dependency on men in 100 years to independence as a matter of course

what are the odds for genius in women in the next 100 years

in the next 1000 years

[La Verdad]

La Verdad:
The beautiful[..?] brillant take charge woman is largely a character of fiction.
Unless by 'take charge' you mean in the sense Jenna Jameson has taken charge of her finances. That breed of woman exists.

Sky:
please (i had to google jenna jameson) no i was thinking more of the masses of woman who have taken charge of their own lives

Yes, taken charge of them materially - we are saying the same thing.

Sky:
as first comes self sufficiency then philosophy and women are doing a brilliant job of self sufficiency

Self-sufficiency is irrelevant to philosophizing. The Buddah and Diogenes all discarded their worldly possessions (and in Buddah's case his throne), a woman's financial ambitions are tangenital to the topic of morality and Genius.
Although as a sidenote, I'm not sure what makes you think women who put Powerpoint presentations before their children will down the line switch gears and put their allegedly existant souls before their careers.

they are outperforming the men at the highest levels of academia no one can dispute that without making a fool of themselves

Again tangenital and philosophically irrelevant, since modern (the lst 80-100 years) academia has produced nothing of serious philosophical depth or importance.
And I wouldn't bother disputing your claim since you possess no evidence or even mention criterion for 'success'.

La Verdad:
Women can succeed in the entrepreneurial and political realms, (although it's much rarer in the latter). This proves woman can be clever and practical, though it doesn't prove she has a soul.

Sky:
but the men who err provide for or are provided for by jenna jameson do

A woman bringing home the bacon or having it brought to her proves she has a soul?

Well that made perfect sense.

LaVerdad:
The genius cares nothing for the material, or for a high station in life (e.g. space shuttle commander?/head of state).

Either he is an artist, and his passion for the Aesthetic drives him to produce high works of art, or he is a philosopher and his obsession with Morality and his inner life force him to live in the way he has found most ethical.

In both molds we find no trace of choice or freedom - that is why the tirelessly rehashed excuse of male oppression as the reason for the nonexistance of female genius is so nonsensical and utterly off the mark.

This is why a deaf man created the greatest piece of music in history,

Sky:
he was not always deaf and he used the vibrations from the piano to plug into his previous knowledge when not deaf

The doesn't change that it's a profound achievement, and he overcame the largest and most tragic obstacle a man in his position could face, and that ridiculous and cruel opposition is no excuse for not attaining genius, or producing works of the same quality.

LaVerdad:
why Michelangelo would sculpt in a pair of shoes, and take them off months later with skin and blood peeling away with them, or while (dazed from paint fumes) fell of a scaffold near the top of the Sistine, and just brushed himself off and went right back to work; and likewise why men like Jesus, Socrates, Weininger, and Cato the Younger would rather die often horrible deaths than live in a manner or a world incongruous with their conscience.

Sky:
jesus died if in fact he died in order to fulfill a 'drama' which illustrated a spiritual message - he was a living parable and he was an avatar/bohdissatva which is not something anyone male or female can become if one is not born one

It's odd you question whether he died, and not whether he was divine? I'm of the opinion he was a mortal, one of the more incredible to ever live, though a mortal none the less.

Sky:
socrates killed himself because his choice was death or not to teach he was not disallowed his conscience amongst his intimates

And Cato the Younger stabbed himself and pulled his intestines out rather than live in a country ruled by a tyrant.
Your statement in no way counters mine: "Jesus, Socrates, Weininger, and Cato the Younger would rather die often horrible deaths than live in a manner or a world incongruous with their conscience."
Both men, faced with a morally disgusting situation found death the more palatable option, and acted accordingly.

La Verdad:
Though honestly I'm still stuck on the fact you felt the trait 'beautiful' at all relevant to this discussion.

Sky:
because in another thread it was allowed that a woman might become a genius but only if she were of the masculine type physically

and i am ready to throw up at your mention of a porn star as the example of beauty

weininger was for celibacy not using women to 'get off' on/over whilst claiming/persuing genius

Since woman is neither intrinsically ethical or unethical, her only source of beauty is her physical attractiveness, and the degree to which she can ape morals created by masculine natures

e.g.:
The life of Mother Theresa | The teachings of Jesus Christ

You will notice no modern Western State has produced a feminine role model possessing both.

In a more masculine and moral time, the West may have produced quite a few ethical hotties, though as the ideal of woman has degenerated from:

The Madonna --> Paris Hilton

the ethical hotty has become an endangered species.
Woman has been 'emancipated', and made our equal, and no one can love, cherish, and respect an equal (just as you can never hate your equal).

Chivalry is the byproduct of the age of Love, Hierarchy, and openly acknowledged, unashamed Inequality.

So in an age where woman has no value beyond her physical attractiveness, yes, I do use a pretty looking whore as an example of Beauty, since that is the only Beauty that remains in modern Western woman.

So go ahead and barf (or more likely continue feigning disgust), and keep in mind it's a mirror image of your generation; yet another generation of Woman, tragically, knocked off her pedastal, and which you, "philosophizing" career woman, help keep securely down there.

[La Verdad]

oh poor pathetic me a female since i am excluded from genius i think i will commit suicide in some dramatic fashion but where

To paraphrase Goethe: people reveal themselves most intimately in what they consider laughable. And the fact Sky finds killing oneself over a moral dilemma to be absurd - sarcastically, laughably absurd - speaks volumes.
Women have commited suicide over many things, though never morality (with the arguable exception of the rather delusional Ms. Jeanne d'Arc - and she too was driven by the ideas of a masculine individual).
Juliets exist; female Weiningers do not.

thought

if women can go from almost total depenency on man in 100 years to indepdence as a matter of course

what are the odds for genius in women in the next 100 years

Still zero. =P

[frank]

kelly:

You also admit that "femininity" is important to you. Evidently, you value truthfulness more than femininity. Since you wouldn't value femininity, if you thought it was irrational to do so, I'm really interested to know how you define femininity.

Consider this, that the Mind, the Self, is a Meaning Making Machine.
I've got a butter knife that 'belonged' to my grandma's grandma that has been passed down thru' the years...it's only a freakin' butter knife for Chrissakes except that my Mind has loaded a World of Abstract Meaning onto it...that has me attached to it...

I have a Meaning about my Car, my House, my fave brand of clothes...even my shoes somehow got 'special' status...

My mind observes..identifies, differentiates, reacts.

Is my Mind seeing what is actually there or seeing the Meaning that my Mind is 'putting' there?

I have a Meaning that my Mind 'puts on' every Person, Thing, Idea, Institution in my Life...

Having the Meaning has me 'charged' or 'charged' with Meaning...Positively Charged, Negatively Charged, Neutral...degrees of...

My Abstract Meanings are like a 'skin' that is super-imposed over 'what is'...

Unless I realise I am Meaning Making I'll probably begin to 'believe' that my Meaning is 'absolutely true'....I might even start to think I 'know' Ultimate Reality...

The Abstract Concept...Masculinity/Femininity...you'd have to ask if it's there wouldn't you? It's something you read in a book isn't it?

Medics have autopsied a billion bodies and never found Masculinity/Femininity...same as a Chakra, never found one...simply Abstract Concepts...the product of a Meaning
Maker...

What happens when I 'grab' these Abstract Concepts and make them Solid with my Mind...make them Real by thinking them so?

These Abstractions tend to get me polarising aspects of the Tao, create dualities...put 'things' into Categories with properties...get me 'charged'...Judgemental, cruel, condemning, hurtful....separated.

One has got to be careful with this Act because one will never experience Life in it's fullness as it is...one will only experience the Meaning one 'puts' on to it..

Realising the Meanings your Mind makes automatically as it casts about for 'stuff' to attach to...realising the Story that gets created is 'empty and meaningless'..

Realising this that the Mind is a Meaning Making Machine...wham, the realisation 'kicks in' like a Mule...knocks you on your arse...cry, laugh, fall over...the enormity of it all staggers you...

What's 'going in' is frikkin' hilarious...no doubt about it.

frank

[millipodium]

Popularizing the self-doubt of mystical nihilism is one goal of the new world order. A fragmented society is weak. Millions of islands of "individual meaning" and selfishness make a piss poor army.

[sky]

Sky:

but the men who err provide for or are provided for by jenna jameson do (do have souls)

it might make more sense if you thought of what it is the a whore provides and who provides for her solely for what she provides

let me help you men are almost exclusively the consumers of what a whore provides

is this a function of their 'souls'

is this putting woman on a pedestal