the underground man

[Pye]

.

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote:

I swear to you, sirs, that excessive consciousness is a disease -- a genuine, absolute disease. For everyday human existence it would more than suffice to have the ordinary share of human consciousness; that is to say, one half, one quarter that that which falls to the lot of a cultivated man in our wretched nineteenth century [...] It would, for instance, be quite enough to have the amount of consciousness by which all the so-called simple, direct people and men of action live.

The underground man has many more of these scathing things to say about what everyone else lacks and what he suffers from -- this excessive consciousness. "For the direct, lawful immediate fruit of consciousness is inertia," he says. Anyone with heightened consciousness, he says, would not, could not be a 'man of action,' for all positivist action and assumptions about the human reason are overblown. The underground man is disgusted with the warranties that are asserted from Enlightenment (as in, the-age-of) thinking. Human beings are not as reasonable as they think.

The underground man makes terrific fun of "the beautiful and the lofty" - those fruits from the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, and when he is finished whining, scathing, and dissecting all such positivist notions, he declares that the ultimate profit that humans are after is not "the good," the reasonable. Here is what he says is wanted over all:

. . . Man, whoever he might be, has always and everywhere acted as he wants, and not at all as reason and profit dictate; and one can want even against one's own profit, and one sometimes even positively must . . . One's own free and voluntary wanting, one's own caprice, however wild, one's own fancy, though chafed sometimes to the point of madness--all this is that same most profitable profit, the omitted one, which does not fit into any classification, and because of which all systems and theories are constantly blown to the devil. And where did all these sages get the idea that man needs some normal, some virtuous wanting? What made them necessarily imagine that what man needs is necessarily a reasonably profitable wanting? Man needs only independent wanting, whatever this independence may cost and wherever it may lead.[emphasis original]

This is more or less of what the underground man is excessively conscious.

He's a hell of a character. Would make a hell of a discussion here, for what he leans-toward and away-from, vis-a-vis the "other" kind of enlightenment discussed here.

.

[Tharan]

I too have felt the curse of consciousness. Understanding things causes pain when you don't know how to handle it. There is so much unfairness combined with my own primal desires. If I could only NOT see the unfairness, NOT see the motivations of others, then I could simply relish wallowing in my own gluttony, unimpeded by any sense of compassion, remorse, or guilt. I would not care who I might hurt or offend. I would be the Happy Sociopath.

But alas, I do see. So my only two choices are to rant and rave or to overcome. Dostoyevsky seemed to draw this character in nearly every one of his novels. And in none of them does this character transcend his plight. I went through a Dostoyevsky phase in my early 20's, but it passed when this too I began to understand. I suspect Fyodor himself had quite a bit of trouble rationalizing away his impulses.

[Pye]

.

In full agreement with you there, Tharan, of what the underground man does not transcend. He rips a few beauts, though, such as thinking that "to love just well-being alone is even somehow indecent." He is underground altogether, of course, because his consciousness does not permit him regular intercourse with the regular world. And when he does intercourse with the world, he is one mis-firing gun . . . .

The existentialists have often claimed of the underground man the right awareness with the wrong results; he is a "failed existentialist," they say. He cannot (e gads if we dare:) take the leap and hammer out a purpose for himself anyway, but can only complain about all the empty purposes offered by society at large.

I love the book. It is a mess; stands at a heightened point, a crux, dismally suspended there. If the underground man fails to transcend, reading his anguish has possibly moved others-to.

.

[Pye]

.


http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/librar ... ground.txt


(if'n you're interested . . . )
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Tharan wrote:

Understanding things causes pain when you don't know how to handle it.

I propose that denotes a need for further understanding. There are things that I require further understanding of, but knowing from experience that further understanding yeilds answers, this gives me hope that there are answers and reduces problems to riddles for me to solve.

There is more to the pain of conciousnes, and it lies in the unconciousness of others. Too often, and usually in the realm of employment, when one is quicker to see the answers, has better solutions, and can see consequences of actions many steps ahead - this causes jealousy in those who see the concious individual as a competetor, and causes concern amongst those who knowingly behave unethically. This is often the catalyst for geniuses to work for themselves. However, having a genius in one area, or many areas, does not always translate well into working for one's self. I suspect that these are reasons why levels of higher intelligence counteract the potential suggested by the state of being a genius.

Here's an article that evidences the lack of fulfillment of potential of those with higher IQs:
The Empty Promise

[Cory Duchesne]

That first dostoevsky quote has always intrigued me,

on Kevins - 'genius quotes' thread, I question him, and am irritated by the lack of response.

Hey Kevin or anybody else.

I was wondering if you could clear something up in regards to this Doestevsky quote:

I swear to you, sirs, that excessive consciousness is a disease -- a genuine, absolute disease. For everyday human existence it would more than suffice to have the ordinary share of human consciousness; that is to say, one half, one quarter that that which falls to the lot of a cultivated man in our wretched nineteenth century [...] It would, for instance, be quite enough to have the amount of consciousness by which all the so-called simple, direct people and men of action live. - Fyodor Dostoevsky

It would be easy for someone to come onto the genius forum and get the impression that the midwifes are advocating ‘excessive consciousness’. One gets this impression by how unfavorable woman are presented – depicted as unconscious. But I realize that it is all about context.

If Kevin thinks being 'excessively' conscious is a disease - - -then surely the QRS are preaching a balance between consciousness and unconsciousness.

Or is this excessive consciousness that Fyodor is talking about is really a form of unconscious?


Is an excessive conscious male an example of an evil being, a being who is one step up from a unmascuine woman?

Could someone give me some examples of your typical man who has excessive consciousness? Besides the underground man?


My impression of the book underground man, is that the underground man is depicted as abnormal, and the other people, the regular well adjusted people are considered Ideal.

Was fydor going through a period in his life where he felt like a failure as a human being and thus wrote out his anguish to warn the world of taking consciousness too far?

[David Quinn]

One is cursed or diseased if one only has slightly excessive consciousness, which is what Dostoevsky, and the world generally, is unwittingly refering to here.

A person with slightly excessive consciousness is conscious enough to be aware of the core philosophical or spiritual issues confronting humanity, but not conscious enough to actually resolve them. He would need even more firepower to help him through this, in which case his excessive consciousness would become a blessing, not a curse.

A person with slightly excessive consciousness can only stumble onto the road between worldliness and nirvana, where he constantly gets run over. He doesn't have it what it takes to cross to the other side.

Needless to say, the vision of the human race is so limited that it tends to regard this stumbling and getting run over as the very height of spiritual genius and philosophical acumen. Humans, generally, have no conception and no inkling of what it means to cross to the other side.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David wrote:

the vision of the human race is so limited that it tends to regard this stumbling and getting run over as the very height of spiritual genius and philosophical acumen

That is a very true observation of falseness.

[AlyOshA]

If Kevin thinks being 'excessively' conscious is a disease - - -then surely the QRS are preaching a balance between consciousness and unconsciousness.

The confusion lies in the word choice and the lack of elaboration. It doesn’t make sense. And neither doesn’t the philosophy of midwives.

Would you consider a state of dreamless sleep to be an “unconscious state”? This is what Kiekegaard says:

I divide my time as follows: half the time I sleep, the other half I dream. I never dream when I sleep, for that would be a pity, for sleeping is the highest accomplishment of genius.
- Journals

Sounds like the “highest accomplishment of genius” is unconsciousness doesn’t it? Here is another quote from Keikegaard:

And when you have died or died to yourself, to the world, then you also died to all immediacy in yourself, also to your understanding. It is when all confidence in yourself or in human support, and also in God in an immediate way, is extinct, when every probability is extinct, when it is dark as on a dark night, it is indeed death we are describing, then comes the life-giving spirit and brings faith.
- For Self Examination

Death? Dark night? This also sounds “unconscious” to me?

But if you want an elaboration from Dostoevsky then I highly recommend reading Dream of a Ridiculous Man http://perso.orange.fr/chabrieres/texts ... usman.html
Here he envisions a paradise of enlightenment and contrasts this with excessive consciousness.

But one could never accuse Dostoevsky of being against reason…

Dostoevsky:

“Errors and quandaries of the mind vanish more quickly and completely than do errors of the heart; their cure is to be found not so much in debate and logical explanation as in the overpowering logic of events of a real, living life, events that very often bear the correct and necessary conclusion within and that indicate the proper path to take; and if this does not happen at once, at the actual moment, then it does happen within a very short time, sometimes even before a new generation appears. The same cannot be said for the errors of the heart. Errors of the heart are something terribly significant: they represent the contaminated spirit, sometimes even of the nation as a whole, that very often bears with it a degree of blindness that cannot be cured by facts of any kind, no matter how clearly they might indicate the proper path to take.”

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

AlyOshA wrote:

Sounds like the “highest accomplishment of genius” is unconsciousness doesn’t it?

Now there's irony. I think that Kiekegaard may have been a little confused.

[AlyOshA]

Throwing Kiekegaard quotes on this thread is a fine display of my laziness. But what the hell…

Faith is against understanding, faith is on the other side of death.
- For Self Examination

And what do you think about the negative connotation of being “self-conscious” as used in the English language? Quite telling I think.

[Cory Duchesne]

Alyosha: Sounds like the “highest accomplishment of genius” is unconsciousness doesn’t it?

Elizabeth: Now there's irony. I think that Kiekegaard may have been a little confused

Actually, Kiekegaard is emphasizing the fact of how he doesnt dream while he sleeps. Can you imagine being THAT conscious and attentive that you don't dream when you sleep?

It takes tremendous energy to be so attentive, to be so conscious that one escapes the mess of dreams.

Only the most conscious of people do not dream when they sleep. And for such people, sleeping is when they are most conscious, whereas waking life is simply used to express the abundance that one has attained via sleep (meditation).

Sleep is truely renewal in this sense.

Personally, I have a hard time being attentive when I lie down to sleep. I watch, I watch, I watch.....and then somehow I become unconscious abuot how I am thinking about what someone said, or what I said, or I start fantasizing about the future in response to a painful memory of the past....soon my thoughts are complete nonesense, just a big mash of fragments. Ah, but then suddenly I catch myself and I realize that for the past 5 minutes I was just thinking about many things without even realizing that I was thinking about them. I almost fell totally unconscious. But I caught myself. And so again, I begin watching, watching, watching....but then I lose attention. I wake up the next day exhausted by a whole night of mindless emotional chattering.

So you can see how we 'fall' into sleep and begin dreaming.

We do so by means of losing attention, fantasizing emotionally, and then soon we wake up the next day exhausted and perplexed by the weirdness of our dreams.

I find I don't have the energy to go beyond dreaming because I find most of my day is spent wasting my energy doing stupid work, jumping through hoops and worrying.

Yes, I am a fool. But wiser than most.

Anyways, to summarize:

Kiekgaard is basically saying that he does not succomb to unconsciousness when he sleeps.

To dream is to be unconscious.

[AlyOshA]

So you are saying that a state of dreamless sleep is a state of full consciousness? I often have dreamless sleep (and I'm not talking about meditation) I go to sleep and wake up, fully refreshed (as you stated) but totally unconscious of what happened, as if I were dead for that period of time. Hmmm... Dead. Now I see why Kiekegaard emphasizes death...

[AlyOshA]

I agree with Kiekegaard by the way. Even though we all like to emphasize persistence, aggressive pursuit, and all those other "masculine" attributes. I personally wasn’t able to experience the ultimate truth until I utilized the “feminine” attributes of acceptance, letting go, and surrender.

The truth is a trap: you can not get it without it getting you; you cannot get the truth by capturing it, only by its capturing you.
- Journal

The infinite resignation is the last stage prior to faith, so that one who has not made this movement has not faith; for only in the infinite resignation do I become clear to myself with respect to my eternal validity, and only then can there be any question of grasping existence by virtue of faith.
- Fear and Trembling

And how does God's existence emerge from the proof? Does it follow straightway, without any breach of continuity? Or do we have an analogy to the behavior of the little Cartesian dolls? As soon as I let go of the doll it stands on its head. As soon as I let it go, I must therefore let it go. So also with the proof. As long as I keep my hold on the proof, i.e., continue to demonstrate, the existence does not come out, if for no other reason that that I am engaged in proving it; but when I let the proof go, the existence is there. But this act of letting go is surely also something; it is indeed a contribution of mine. Must not this also be taken into account, this little moment, brief as it may be, it need not be long, for it is a leap.
- Philosophical Fragments

[Pye]

.


Cory, the original Dostoevsky quote supplied by Kevin are the words in one of his novels, spoken by this character, the underground man.

Not that this answers any of your questions regarding further interpretation.

But it might explain some of the confusion between Dostoevsky, the person, and his thoughts on reason, and the thoughts of one of his characters, the underground man.


.

[Cory Duchesne]

Alyosha wrote:

I personally wasn’t able to experience the ultimate truth until I utilized the “feminine” attributes of acceptance, letting go, and surrender.

Unless you develop your masculinity to its fullest capacity, you will 'accept, let go, and surrender' to the dishonest ways of humanity.

Without pushing and developoing ones masculinitity to its furthest reaches, ones submissiveness, acceptance, and surrendering will merely be a compliance with mediocrity.

[Cory Duchesne]

pye wrote:

Cory, the original Dostoevsky quote supplied by Kevin are the words in one of his novels, spoken by this character, the underground man.

Not that this answers any of your questions regarding further interpretation.

But it might explain some of the confusion between Dostoevsky, the person, and his thoughts on reason, and the thoughts of one of his characters, the underground man.

Personally, I think Dostoevsky WAS the underground man that he was depicting as a character appart from himself.

It was probably Doestoevsky's way of transcending and putting to best use his despairing state of mind.

The reason why 'underground man' expressed such original psychological insight was because doestevsky drew the insights from his own predicament. He probably came to understand himself better by writing the book. He was probably very confused and in despiar before he started writing the book. As he wrote and wrote, the intricacies of his own wretched state became clearer and clearer.

Thus you have the brilliant mess of 'underground man'. A book that is basically the result of doestevsky studying carefully his own mind.

[Cory Duchesne]

Alyosha wrote:

So you are saying that a state of dreamless sleep is a state of full consciousness?

Well, I'll admit I don't feel that i personally have ever slept a full night without dreaming. However, I do consistently make an effort to watch my mind and study very closely the state of mind that I am in when I am on the verge of losing consciousness and it is indeed a 'dreamy' one (meaning, there is a sequence of thoughts attempting to be logical, but due to weariness and emotions, these thoughts are eneverated and very feeble). I feel that one dreams because of the thoughts that one is having during waking hours and especially while one is lying down in bed to rest.

The quality of activity happening while one is awake determines the quality of sleep.

So anyway, I don't think I know what its like to have a dreamless sleep. However, I do know from experience that dreams are born from unconsciousness, and unconsciousness creates dreams.

What is your explaination for your dreamless sleeps Alyosha? What do you think causes dreams? What are the factors that free your mind from dreams?

Alyosha: I often have dreamless sleep (and I'm not talking about meditation) I go to sleep and wake up, fully refreshed (as you stated) but totally unconscious of what happened, as if I were dead for that period of time.

Well, your going to have to help us understand what causes you to have this dreamless sleep.

I would say unconsciousness, a lack of persistance and a lack of hard, rigorous mental work is what causes me to have a sleep full of dreams.

[AlyOshA]

[Edit-spelling and grammer]

Cory:

I would say unconsciousness, a lack of persistance and a lack of hard, rigorous mental work is what causes me to have a sleep full of dreams.

No I would say that it is just the opposite. The persistence, hard, rigorous mental work is what causes your overactive and unceasing mind and ultimately continues into your dreams. It sounds like you are trying to practice a Buddhist mindfulness meditation. But don’t forget the silent observer, let go, relax, when a thought enters your head don’t label it, or analyze it, just silently observe it and be aware of it, eventually you will stop having thoughts all together, and you will find that this is the ultimate ease and understanding of existence. At first it seems really difficult, but later it is like a flip of a switch. It is not “unconsciousness”. It is consciousness without thought. When you haven’t resolved the problems of your mind you continue to solve these problems when you are asleep, hence dreaming occurs. I have dreamless sleep because I no longer suffer over the unresolved problems of my mind. But I do dream during stressful, life-changing events.
But I can’t stress enough the problems that occur by holding on to this “masculine” pursuit. Take Kiekegaard’s advice and let go. When you let go the truth finds you (if you're conscious enough to grasp it).

I think the confusion over consciousness verse unconsciousness is simply confusion over the types of consciousness and its varying degrees. To have a fully conscious ego is a type of consciousness but I suspect that those on the path to enlightenment would call this “unconscious”. As D Quinn states the sickness of the “underground man” is a sickness of the ego. It creates astronomical suffering but can ultimately lead its victim to transcend the ego and obtain enlightenment. Someone who is fully conscious of their spiritual self is experiencing a different type of consciousness than the person who lives through their “acquired personality” or ego. I would not consider either of theses states as being “unconscious”. To me unconsciousness is death, in the sense that Kiekegaard discusses death (or dreamless sleep if you will). On the other side of death is faith and getting there requires a leap (according to K).

Without pushing and developoing ones masculinitity to its furthest reaches, ones submissiveness, acceptance, and surrendering will merely be a compliance with mediocrity.

No it requires a balance of masculine and feminine. Both have equally useful functions when dealing with the entire spectrum of the various manifestations associated with existence. You choose to limit yourself because it is easier for you to understand. But this type of limitation and ignorance often causes prejudice. You are arbitrarily attaching what you feel are "negative" attributes to the gender of femininity. If you did the same thing to a race then you would be considered a racist. I have not read one logically sound post from anyone on this forum that even slightly convinces me A.) that these “negative attributes” are in fact feminine. Or B.) that they have anything to do with obtaining enlightenment or functioning in reality. I am truly dumbfounded as to how you could have come to these conclusions. Celibacy? Lack of experience maybe? Granted empiricism is not the only type of knowledge but it is a very useful one. You can contemplate a craft all you want, you can read 1000 books and meditate on it, embody its spirit, but the only way you can learn a craft is by doing it, experiencing it, good ol’ trail and error. I can only fathom that these conclusions were arrived at through lack of experience.

As for Dostoevsky, I think you need to study all of his books. “Notes From the Underground” is his first major novel after Siberia and his “mock execution”. After studying a larger sampling of his oeuvre, you might consider Dostoevsky to be one of the greatest artists, dramatists, spiritualists, and philosophers ever to put a pen against paper (I do). The “Underground Man” is not Dostoevsky it is an example of his profound awareness of the entire spectrum of humanity and consciousness and marks the second stage of his career and the beginning of his ultimate profundity.

[David Quinn]

Are you talking about the man who was hopelessly addicted to gambling and repeatedly gnashed his teeth because he couldn't bring himself to believe in the Christian God?

Dostoevsky was certainly an interesting psychological writer with an affinity for those who live on the fringes of society, but he was still a very shallow man. His understanding of the Infinite was non-existent. Kierkegaard used to eat hundreds of Dostoevskys every day for breakfast.

To use my analogy above, he was one of those individuals who entered a little way onto the road and wrote about the suffering of constantly getting run over. A lot of people find this interesting, but profound it isn't.

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

David,

A person with slightly excessive consciousness is conscious enough to be aware of the core philosophical or spiritual issues confronting humanity, but not conscious enough to actually resolve them.

Curious: what are the core spiritual issues?

I take this to mean the nature of suffering; the separation of truth from falsehood; and ultimately, understanding the nature of reality.

[David Quinn]

Alyosha wrote:

No it requires a balance of masculine and feminine. Both have equally useful functions when dealing with the entire spectrum of the various manifestations associated with existence. You choose to limit yourself because it is easier for you to understand. But this type of limitation and ignorance often causes prejudice. You are arbitrarily attaching what you feel are "negative" attributes to the gender of femininity. If you did the same thing to a race then you would be considered a racist. I have not read one logically sound post from anyone on this forum that even slightly convinces me A.) that these “negative attributes” are in fact feminine. Or B.) that they have anything to do with obtaining enlightenment or functioning in reality.

I think it is evident from your comments below that you and I have very different ideas of what it means to be enlightened.

For you it seems to mean a passive consciousness which simply observes things without judgment - and yes, femininity is perfectly suited to this task. In fact, one would probably have to become as feminine as possible in order to best achieve this state.

For me, enlightenment means breakthing though the Zen Barrier and grasping the whole riddle of existence with a single grasp of thought.

I am truly dumbfounded as to how you could have come to these conclusions.

It's possibly because he isn't in love with women and isn't content to settle down into a cow-like existence.

No I would say that it is just the opposite. The persistence, hard, rigorous mental work is what causes your overactive and unceasing mind and ultimately continues into your dreams. It sounds like you are trying to practice a Buddhist mindfulness meditation. But don’t forget the silent observer, let go, relax, when a thought enters your head don’t label it, or analyze it, just silently observe it and be aware of it, eventually you will stop having thoughts all together, and you will find that this is the ultimate ease and understanding of existence. At first it seems really difficult, but later it is like a flip of a switch. It is not “unconsciousness”. It is consciousness without thought.

Again, this is cowhood, which is the opposite of Buddhahood.

In any case, it is literally impossible to be conscious without thought. Thoughts are very building blocks of all consciousness. What you probably mean is a carefree consciousness without worries. Thoughts are still occuring, but they aren't disturbing the cow-like ego.

-

[David Quinn]

Since we are quoting Kierkegaard ....

To say that Christianity makes man and woman equal, and therefore the woman must relate to Christianity the same way as man, is baseless talk. Christianity does indeed make man and woman equal, but it still does not change their natural qualifications; otherwise by the same logic one could conclude that Christianity must cause women to grow just as tall and muscular as men, or even( if Christianity normally had this result) have the effect of making the business of childbirth in Christendom so confusing and in discriminating that sometimes it would be the woman, sometimes the man, who bore the child.

To say that women relate to Christianity even more essentially than men is a fraudulent trick to get Christianity redrafted in terms of the immediate and direct. No, on the scale of the immediate and direct women certainly have the advantage both in delicacy and depth and inwardness, but as soon as there is a dialectic, women are in the same situation as people in the southern countries when they have to pronounce a Slavic word with five or six consonants before a vowel.

-

Basically it is terrible but true, and it expresses the dreadful extent to which it is true - Christianity simply does not exit. This is the real situation in Christendom, especially in Protestantism. The men - and that means the miserable weaklings and clods that are called men these days, compared to the Oriental idea of what it is to be a man - men turn away from religion with a certain pride and egotism and say: Religion( Christianity) is something for women and children. But the truth of the matter is that Christianity as it is found in the New Testament has such prodigious aims that, strictly speaking, it cannot be a religion for women, at most second-hand, and is impossible for children.

As a psychologist I maintain that no woman can endure a dialectical redoubling, and everything that is essentially Christian is intrinsically dialectical. The essentially Christian task requires a man, it takes a man's toughness and strength simply to be able to bear the pressure of the task. A good which is identified by its hurting, a deliverance which is identified by its making me unhappy, a grace which is identified by suffering, etc. - all this, and everything essentially Christian is like this, no woman can bear, she will lose her mind if she is to be put under the tension of this strenuousness.

As far as children are concerned, it is sheer nonsense that they are supposed to be Christians. A woman and, above all, a child relate to things directly and breathe the air of directness and immediacy. If something is a good, well then it must be recognizable by its doing good; there is no use in forcing a woman( I will not even mention the child) into a good that hurts - it would break her. Just notice why it is that a woman cannot tolerate irony, that as far as her emotions are concerned irony is fatal. Is this not because she cannot bear the dialectical?

Soren Kierkegaard on Woman

-

[David Quinn]

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

DQ: A person with slightly excessive consciousness is conscious enough to be aware of the core philosophical or spiritual issues confronting humanity, but not conscious enough to actually resolve them.

TS: Curious: what are the core spiritual issues?

I take this to mean the nature of suffering; the separation of truth from falsehood; and ultimately, understanding the nature of reality.

You're probably getting a bit too "core" for most people there. For someone of Dostoevsky's ilk, the core issues would be: "What is the purpose of life?", "How can there be meaning without a God?", "How can a God permit so much suffering in the world?", "How did Jesus overcome his doubts about the existence of God?", and so on.

In other words, like so many people during that time, he was still badly smitten by the Christian religion and still basically operated at that superficial level.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Alyosha wrote:

I am truly dumbfounded as to how you could have come to these conclusions. Celibacy? Lack of experience maybe?

I've had sex hundereds of times. Maybe i've broke one thousand. To this day I still succomb to masterbation about once a week on average.

I've only had two long term girlfriends though, and they were quite beautiful, endowed and licentious (although not very bright).

They brought me nothing but eneverated soul.

The last girl I got involved with (I met her in hawaii) wasnt super sexy, rather she was being put through university because of scholarships for her high grades. She was a very decent girl, good intellect, but behind her university education was an old school Christian belief system combined with a very strong desire to get married. I found that the only way I could ever be with this girl is by putting a stop to my development and begin comprimising to her pace of development - of which was nil if we are talking about her inner life.

Superficially she was gung-ho only to climb academically, get a job, get married and have kids.

But she was totally devoid of profundity, devoid of a desire for a philosophers life, the enlightened life of which I was burning for.

The reason I emphasize all of this is not to brag about my experiences (and i've only scratched the surface), but to show that my lack of love for woman is not based on my inability to be likable to them, or to know how to please them, but it is quite the contrary.

I know women inside out, and because I feel I am very experienced with them, I am thus quite certain that they need to be for the most part ignored.

As for my non-sexual experience, well I've travelled quite a bit on my own, 2 years ago I visted Hawaii in order to do some minimal volunteer work at a Jiddu Krishnamurti study retreat, I hitchhiked around the island, listened to and talked with many weird people, spent alot of time with a girl I met who drove me around the island (she was the one that wanted to get married - I never even had a desire to have sex with her or make any sort of romantic move on her - something she was quite angry about - you see, at that point in my life I was already far too involved in philosophy to be very moved by an average looking girl. If she would have been a more volumptous and sultry, then I might have succomed though)

I travled ontario a bit, visited some communes (intentional communities), did some volunteer work at some organic farms, and I attented a permaculture course.

I found that it was in the pressence of woman that things got the most tiresome, tedious and testing. And I noticed how cowardly, foolish, neurotic and unhappy most of the men were that I met.

They were very limited in how far they were willing to go.

I also travelled to switzerland and attended a Jiddu Krishnamurti dialogue group that lasted a week, and I met many people, and for the most part they were nice, but at the same time often very egotistically sensitive, each with very different intepretations of JK's teachings. It was from this trip that I learned how ineffective JK's teachings really were.

This year I'm going to University and I've already had a very dreadful experience with an overwhelmingly intellectual, quick and pretty attractive woman who I met last year on the street and seemed to have then made good impression on.

She was very 'artsy and 'counterculture-ish'. Likes to have 'pot-lucks and barbecues' and drinks wine.

She talked about how she had a boyfriend living in new york who was on the verge of becoming a succesful musician.

I don't think she was lying because she went into many details (of which was quite excruciating to listen to) I think she was trying to make herself seem desirable by showing me what kind of 'mates' she deals with.

Why was she telling me all of this? To be impressive of course.

She went on to talk about how much she liked William Burroughs, tom waits, Bob Dylan, Tom Robbins.

She was so obviously obsessed with being famous or being attatched to someone who had the potential to be famous.

She was terrible for name dropping.

I made a comment about how I thought 'coolness' and the desire for fame was what drove many people and that there were layers of coolness for people to belong to. There was the most shallow form of coolness (the most trendy of clothes, movies and bands), and then you worked your way down eventually arriving at people like "William burroughs, weird hats, nose earings, plaid, Jazz music, Tom Waits, the doors, and Bob dylan, Jack Keurac-on the road - - -all those people and things comprised a certain layer of coolness for people to use to not only establish an elitist identity but also a sense of how to become special and famous.

After listening to me talk about 'the culture of cool' she had a pained look on her face and groaned: "ugh, philosophy".

Before my eyes I imagined what I would have to be in order to have the relationship with her that she wanted to have.

I would have to be ambitious, super friendly to her super friends, super individualistic, supportive, diplomatic, a 'bad-ass', hypocritical, someone who has something big going for him.

I would have to be someone to make her X-boyfriend in new york jealous, or someone to at least hold her off until she can see her old boyfriend again.

She then complained about how she would hate to ever be famous and that she was afraid her boyfriend in new york would become famous.

At this point I said that her boyfriend probably wanted to be like the greek God hades. Lord of the underworld, whose well being is derived from generating followers (the dead).

She replied by saying that she would like to be the greek God 'Karin' - Karin is a male god who takes people down to hell on a raft.

Since she said that she wanted to be a writer like william burroughs - i thought that a 'william burroughs' type of writer really does just that sort of thing. Getting into william burroughs is like taking a raft down into hell.

I then told her with a mischevious grin that I agreed with Jean Paul Sartre when he said: "Hell is other people". I laughed. Whereas she frowned....and changed the subject to something else that I found boring and superficial. I think she started talking about how she wanted to start making money by 'modeling'.

Bottom line - - I find pretty woman who are intellectual much more of a burden then just pure pretty unintellectual woman, or just plain looking intellectual girls.

Sexiness and intellect is so deadly.

Woman who are sexy and intellectual are the most deadly - I want nothing to do with them.

If a woman were to be intellectual and bearable, she would have to be concerned with overcoming the sex drive, base emotions, vanity, worldliness - she would have to like serious philosophy.

Otherwise she is a spider, and you; the fly.