No. I do not think women are conscious of the fact of their inferiority at all. It is completely reactive in nature. Of course, the matter is complicated by the fact that most men are women, too.Cathy Preston wrote:Maybe you could enlighten me then ~ because the answer is not obvious to me at all, in fact isn't this what this whole thread is about. Do you agree with the topic of this thread that Woman believe that they are inferior?Leyla: The answer, to me, is obvious. Were you just wanting to chat? Perhaps your questions were rhetorical. Either way, it seems I have misunderstood you.
Women believe they are inferior
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Yes, men are not inherently superior, but nonetheless they really are superior when it comes to activities which require high-level abstraction and genius - such as spirituality, philosophy, science, and art. Generally speaking.
Then surely you would agree that the conviction is factual, rather than inherent. I fail to see this making any sense, otherwise. Is there any difference?
Then surely you would agree that the conviction is factual, rather than inherent. I fail to see this making any sense, otherwise. Is there any difference?
-
Cathy Preston
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
- Location: Canada
Are you saying woman are in fact inferior but aren't conscious of their inferiority? So she subconsciously reacts from a position of inferiority. But to me this is completely different than:Leyla: No. I do not think women are conscious of the fact of their inferiority at all. It is completely reactive in nature. Of course, the matter is complicated by the fact that most men are women, too.
Inequality arises out of a belief in equality. A man does not equal a woman, femininity is not masculinity they are two distinct manifestations of nature. The inequality reflected in society is a reaction to the erroneous belief that Man = Woman. We believe in our shared existence as the common denominator from which to support our idea of equality. Yet if this common denominator is removed, nothing is left to support this idea.Leyla: it is just a figment of society's inherently convinced imagination...
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
LOL. Am I releasing some sort of cyber-pheromone, or what?Cathy Preston wrote:Are you saying woman are in fact inferior but aren't conscious of their inferiority? So she subconsciously reacts from a position of inferiority. But to me this is completely different than:Leyla: No. I do not think women are conscious of the fact of their inferiority at all. It is completely reactive in nature. Of course, the matter is complicated by the fact that most men are women, too.
Leyla: it is just a figment of society's inherently convinced imagination...
Um, I reckon that's exactly the point I'm trying to make with David.
Hello?
Welcome to Genius.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Leyla wrote:
-
I would say it's both factual and inherent. It is inherent in the sense that the conviction is part and parcel of being a sexually desirable woman. That women are ditzy, gullible, submissive, emotional, anxious, mentally-all-over-the-place, etc, is a result of both the reality of their mental inferiority and also their inner conviction that they are inferior.DQ: Yes, men are not inherently superior, but nonetheless they really are superior when it comes to activities which require high-level abstraction and genius - such as spirituality, philosophy, science, and art. Generally speaking.
Leyla: Then surely you would agree that the conviction is factual, rather than inherent. I fail to see this making any sense, otherwise. Is there any difference?
I agree it is not a conscious reaction on their parts. If anything, women's consciousness are constantly absorbed in the task of affirming and reaffirming their own self-worth and sense of superiority. But that, of course, is simply a nervous reaction to their own underlying sense of panic.No. I do not think women are conscious of the fact of their inferiority at all. It is completely reactive in nature. Of course, the matter is complicated by the fact that most men are women, too.
-
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
THE POLITICS OF SEX
I would say it's both factual and inherent. It is inherent in the sense that the conviction is part and parcel of being a sexually desirable woman. That women are ditzy, gullible, submissive, emotional, anxious, mentally-all-over-the-place, etc, is a result of both the reality of their mental inferiority and also their inner conviction that they are inferior.
Men are supposed to be able to take it (which, funnily enough, is yet another example of society's inherent conviction that men are superior beings).
Then it would also be an inherent and factual aspect of reality that men are superior beings. But, in light of the apparent male lamentation in the last sentence quoted above, is the idea of male superiority a factual and inherent part, then, of a deluded societal conviction? Are we supposed to be supposing otherwise?
Real men don’t give a fuck, really. Given this, I have to ask myself to whom such political dissertations are really addressed.
I have a great deal of respect for you as a philosopher, David Quinn. As a politician, however -- well, my position is still pending.
Men are supposed to be able to take it (which, funnily enough, is yet another example of society's inherent conviction that men are superior beings).
Then it would also be an inherent and factual aspect of reality that men are superior beings. But, in light of the apparent male lamentation in the last sentence quoted above, is the idea of male superiority a factual and inherent part, then, of a deluded societal conviction? Are we supposed to be supposing otherwise?
Real men don’t give a fuck, really. Given this, I have to ask myself to whom such political dissertations are really addressed.
I have a great deal of respect for you as a philosopher, David Quinn. As a politician, however -- well, my position is still pending.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Leyla,
Of course, society tries to suppress this fact from its collective consciousness because it is politically incorrect not to regard the sexes as equal in all matters - except in those areas that women claim to be better at (naturally!). But the force with which it is suppressed, and the regularity of its occurance, indicates that, deep down, no one really believes it.
It is addressed to everyone - whether they be male or female - who desires to go beyond the world of woman and lead a wise, Buddha-like existence. I agree that "real men" don't really give a fuck, but even they feel the pull of the feminine from everywhere in society, which can weaken their resolve. So it is important to provide some encouragement for them too.
I don't consider these dissertions to be political, however. I don't know what you mean by this.
-
As before, it is both a fact of reality and the current inner conviction of society.Then it would also be an inherent and factual aspect of reality that men are superior beings. But, in light of the apparent male lamentation in the last sentence quoted above, is the idea of male superiority a factual and inherent part, then, of a deluded societal conviction?
Of course, society tries to suppress this fact from its collective consciousness because it is politically incorrect not to regard the sexes as equal in all matters - except in those areas that women claim to be better at (naturally!). But the force with which it is suppressed, and the regularity of its occurance, indicates that, deep down, no one really believes it.
Real men don’t give a fuck, really. Given this, I have to ask myself to whom such political dissertations are really addressed.
It is addressed to everyone - whether they be male or female - who desires to go beyond the world of woman and lead a wise, Buddha-like existence. I agree that "real men" don't really give a fuck, but even they feel the pull of the feminine from everywhere in society, which can weaken their resolve. So it is important to provide some encouragement for them too.
I don't consider these dissertions to be political, however. I don't know what you mean by this.
-
Anxiousness in women
There's talk about womens' anxiousness or proneness to panic here but there's a flipside to that. Being amoral, they can also appear to be very much at ease with being women, far more so than many men appear relaxed at being men. That's due to the lack of struggle or doubt - if you have no morality, there's nothing to fight for or against.
Perhaps it's the moments they are made aware of their own shortfalls, which for women can be triggered by minutest things, that they fly into anxiousness and panic. That also accords with having no moral core.
Perhaps it's the moments they are made aware of their own shortfalls, which for women can be triggered by minutest things, that they fly into anxiousness and panic. That also accords with having no moral core.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
A Tribute to Man
This is indeed one fantastic phenomenon, David Quinn. Force used against and instead of reason. No matter how much I chalk it down to fear, insecurity and ignorance, it yet defies reasonable satisfaction.Of course, society tries to suppress this fact from its collective consciousness because it is politically incorrect not to regard the sexes as equal in all matters - except in those areas that women claim to be better at (naturally!). But the force with which it is suppressed, and the regularity of its occurance, indicates that, deep down, no one really believes it.
I have been attacked -- literally -- a few times in my life because I have made certain assertions or propositions during what was, initially, a discussion. (Oh, in so many overt and covert ways -- I have some intensely interesting recollections of human behaviour to reflect upon.) Me, 5'4, petite l'il ol' me. How much power do words yield when they stir such terror upon not only individuals, but nations?
Funnily enough (unbeknownst to those opposing?), in each instance, I would have been happy to have been proven wrong -- logically, that is.
And the subject matter? Mundane things, such as a professional position, religion, health, addiction, money, spirituality.
It seems, however, one can never redeem themselves in such people's eyes, for there is no redemption from one's integrity -- and no salvation from the clutches of those who have none.
Pity unto the man who must fight. Yet it is he, at his most complete, who has brought us all our wisdom.
-
TryingToWakeUp
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:13 pm
Cool topic
Salut, everyone.
I think Otto did a great job delivering the western perspective on the attributes and interaction of the Ing and Yang.
So this thread is a miniature, but nevertheless emotionally charged instance of the battle of the sexes. I agree with the original tone of Otto's book that there is an objective difference between male and female origin on the scale of rationality, organziation, causality etc. Male is of the Cause, Female is of the Effect.
The intersting point, is that no one male (even the most masculine) wants to be all the cause. No male wants to be all male or there he becomes sexless (unless that's the goal) Isn't that the catch? Does it not make Sex a game? What I mean by that is that Male realizes the irrationality of anything sexual and faces a choice to either succumb to it (which degrades his masculinity as it requires a desire to be Effect), or to give it up, which also degrades it. He realizes the loss, works through the obstacles to recover it (which requires transcendence from sex) and then winds up in square one. The origin of male sex drive can be viewed as a desire for Chaos. The female drive is the opposite, that's why it's frequently perceived as more Worthy or Elevating. And it is. All sexual is degrading to male and elevating to female. We meet in the middle, clash and go back to our corners. But as long as we stick around (remain sexual) the game goes on :).
I think Otto did a great job delivering the western perspective on the attributes and interaction of the Ing and Yang.
So this thread is a miniature, but nevertheless emotionally charged instance of the battle of the sexes. I agree with the original tone of Otto's book that there is an objective difference between male and female origin on the scale of rationality, organziation, causality etc. Male is of the Cause, Female is of the Effect.
The intersting point, is that no one male (even the most masculine) wants to be all the cause. No male wants to be all male or there he becomes sexless (unless that's the goal) Isn't that the catch? Does it not make Sex a game? What I mean by that is that Male realizes the irrationality of anything sexual and faces a choice to either succumb to it (which degrades his masculinity as it requires a desire to be Effect), or to give it up, which also degrades it. He realizes the loss, works through the obstacles to recover it (which requires transcendence from sex) and then winds up in square one. The origin of male sex drive can be viewed as a desire for Chaos. The female drive is the opposite, that's why it's frequently perceived as more Worthy or Elevating. And it is. All sexual is degrading to male and elevating to female. We meet in the middle, clash and go back to our corners. But as long as we stick around (remain sexual) the game goes on :).
Women believe they are inferior
Thank God for lesbians, at least there is one section of the community who does not think men are superior.
David, I really think you need to get over yourself.
David, I really think you need to get over yourself.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
And rejoin the human fold obsessing over clothes, fun, sex and money? No, thanks.
As for lesbians, I'm not so sure that lesbians are all that different from women generally. They are certainly a lot closer to the average woman than the male homosexual is to the average man. Women are generally very touchy-feely in their behavioiur. They are always seeking physical contact with one another and can happily chat for hours about their genitals and underwear. Mentally, they are always merging into one another with emotional caresses. They can turn even the most mundane conversation on the street into a mutual love-fest.
Like most women, lesbians do think, deep down, that men are superior. This is evidenced by the fact that lesbians are always very smug in their relationships with one another, a by-product of their greater mergedness. They are constantly escaping into their lesbianism from the harsher constrasts of the world, which are predominantly created by men. Their very lifestyle is a tacit acknowledgement that they are unable to deal with these constrasts on their own.
Also, many lesbian relationships feature the duality of dominance and submission, just as we find in any normal marriage. The dominant partner in the lesbian relationship is a usually a kind of pseudo-man who is often described as "wearing the pants" in the relationship. Again, this is a tacit acknowledgement that men are superior when it comes to action, power, initiative, control, etc.
-
As for lesbians, I'm not so sure that lesbians are all that different from women generally. They are certainly a lot closer to the average woman than the male homosexual is to the average man. Women are generally very touchy-feely in their behavioiur. They are always seeking physical contact with one another and can happily chat for hours about their genitals and underwear. Mentally, they are always merging into one another with emotional caresses. They can turn even the most mundane conversation on the street into a mutual love-fest.
Like most women, lesbians do think, deep down, that men are superior. This is evidenced by the fact that lesbians are always very smug in their relationships with one another, a by-product of their greater mergedness. They are constantly escaping into their lesbianism from the harsher constrasts of the world, which are predominantly created by men. Their very lifestyle is a tacit acknowledgement that they are unable to deal with these constrasts on their own.
Also, many lesbian relationships feature the duality of dominance and submission, just as we find in any normal marriage. The dominant partner in the lesbian relationship is a usually a kind of pseudo-man who is often described as "wearing the pants" in the relationship. Again, this is a tacit acknowledgement that men are superior when it comes to action, power, initiative, control, etc.
-
-
MKFaizi
I have come to loathe all humans equally.
Most lesbians have suffered physical abuse of some sort. Most lesbians who assume a dominant role fail the same as men who assume a dominant role; as submissive men or women fail.
Why fuck? Why even fuck your hand?
That is what the woman/man debate is completely about -- fucking.
Damn.
Get over it.
Faizi
Most lesbians have suffered physical abuse of some sort. Most lesbians who assume a dominant role fail the same as men who assume a dominant role; as submissive men or women fail.
Why fuck? Why even fuck your hand?
That is what the woman/man debate is completely about -- fucking.
Damn.
Get over it.
Faizi
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
To fuck, or not to fuck...
I said to a guy at work today -- who is entirely "into" Buddhism -- that fucking was fine as long as there was no attachment along with it.
He said, "Oh, you mean one-night-stands?"
I mean, how literally are you supposed to take this shit?
He said, "Oh, you mean one-night-stands?"
I mean, how literally are you supposed to take this shit?
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
ASCETISM
[Contemplates a mind dwelling in emptiness during a fuck]
Hm.
[Further contemplates a mind dwelling in emptiness during a conversation; eating; shaking hands; a cuddle; breathing; faced by an antagonist...]
Hm.
[Further contemplates a mind dwelling in emptiness during a conversation; eating; shaking hands; a cuddle; breathing; faced by an antagonist...]
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
It is very hard to fuck while your mind is dwelling in emptiness, as the emotional desire to dominate (or submit) is not there. It would be like trying to play a musical instrument while being utterly incapable of experiencing any kind of emotional pleasure from music. One doesn't really see the point of it.
-
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Well...
I can't say I've never experienced that kind of a fuck. Obviously, it didn't go too well.
BUT...
(I feel like we're going to go round in circles again, here.)
I cannot imagine that there is no-thing you don't get emotional pleasure from.
If you are to say there isn't, what is it the motivates you to do what you do with your life? To emote? And, if you don't emote, what would you call that effort that allows you to communicate -- that wave upon which your thoughts travel?
If you are to say there is, what is the difference between the willful pretense of having great sex, or performing any other worldly activity?
BUT...
(I feel like we're going to go round in circles again, here.)
I cannot imagine that there is no-thing you don't get emotional pleasure from.
If you are to say there isn't, what is it the motivates you to do what you do with your life? To emote? And, if you don't emote, what would you call that effort that allows you to communicate -- that wave upon which your thoughts travel?
If you are to say there is, what is the difference between the willful pretense of having great sex, or performing any other worldly activity?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Oh, I still get emotional pleasure from things - I'm not a perfect Buddha by any means. I still enjoy music, for example. I also get emotional pleasure from thinking clearly and sharing my truths with others.
So my motivation for promoting wisdom is partly emotional and partly ingrained into my nature through habit. Should I ever become a perfect Buddha, the former will fade away and I will be entirely driven by the latter.
-
So my motivation for promoting wisdom is partly emotional and partly ingrained into my nature through habit. Should I ever become a perfect Buddha, the former will fade away and I will be entirely driven by the latter.
There is no real difference, as long as there is ego involved. All egotistical activity involves domination or submission of some kind. The difference with the budding sage is that he concentrates on dominating his ignorance and doesn't allow himself to get sidetracked by less important matters.If you are to say there is, what is the difference between the willful pretense of having great sex, or performing any other worldly activity?
-
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
So do you care about people, or what is it that motivates you to share truths with others?DavidQuinn000 wrote:Oh, I still get emotional pleasure from things - I'm not a perfect Buddha by any means. I still enjoy music, for example. I also get emotional pleasure from thinking clearly and sharing my truths with others.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Sub-mit
Is habit itself not a form of submission?
Does the defining difference lie in what you are submitting to, or that you are consciously, thoughtfully and -- therefore -- willingly submitting?
Is it not emotion that leads one to habit in the first place?
Does the defining difference lie in what you are submitting to, or that you are consciously, thoughtfully and -- therefore -- willingly submitting?
Is it not emotion that leads one to habit in the first place?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Matt wrote:
I don't know about this "caring for others" bit. That's far too abstract to be a real factor and always arises out of self-centered motives, in any case. "Caring for others" is essentially what people call their egotistical attachment to their loved ones - it glosses the attachment up and conceals the selfishness underlying it. In the case of Mother Teresa types, the phrase reverts back to its meaningless, abstract nature.
-
On the emotional front, it's the desire to: share this hidden fantastic thing I have discovered; follow my conscience and do what is right; repay my debt to past sages for helping to enlighten me; live in a world where madness and irrationality are absent. Naturally, these desires are all egotistical and emotional in nature.So do you care about people, or what is it that motivates you to share truths with others?
I don't know about this "caring for others" bit. That's far too abstract to be a real factor and always arises out of self-centered motives, in any case. "Caring for others" is essentially what people call their egotistical attachment to their loved ones - it glosses the attachment up and conceals the selfishness underlying it. In the case of Mother Teresa types, the phrase reverts back to its meaningless, abstract nature.
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Leyla wrote:
-
Yes, but that's no bad thing when it involves submission to truth. We are habitual creatures by nature, and so becoming wise is all about forming wise habits - even if it is just the habit of centering one's mind in emptiness.Is habit itself not a form of submission?
It's a bit of both. You can't submit to logic and truth, not consistently at least, without doing it in a conscious, thoughtful and willing fashion. And vice versa, you can't be fully conscious and thoughtful in your choices without being devoted to truth.Does the defining difference lie in what you are submitting to, or that you are consciously, thoughtfully and -- therefore -- willingly submitting?
Well, we're genetically-wired to be habitual. How people form their habits can depend on a lot of things - fear, desire, laziness, mindlessness, sense of purpose, rationality, etc.Is it not emotion that leads one to habit in the first place?
-
-
MKFaizi
No, I do not think that philosophy is about sex. I do think many people are motivated to discuss the differences between man and woman by sex.
That is why I think the man/woman topic has always produced a large and reactive participation. That motivation among other motivations, certainly. But people do rather get off on discussing the problem of Woman.
At the center of this is the misunderstanding of what is meant by Woman. Since I have been around for several years, I have participated in lengthy discussions of this subject and I have expressed myself ad nauseum. I have no desire to debate it any longer.
By that, I do not mean to imply that I see no merit in the discussion. I mean that I think I have discussed it amply myself.
Faizi
That is why I think the man/woman topic has always produced a large and reactive participation. That motivation among other motivations, certainly. But people do rather get off on discussing the problem of Woman.
At the center of this is the misunderstanding of what is meant by Woman. Since I have been around for several years, I have participated in lengthy discussions of this subject and I have expressed myself ad nauseum. I have no desire to debate it any longer.
By that, I do not mean to imply that I see no merit in the discussion. I mean that I think I have discussed it amply myself.
Faizi
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Caring for others.
Matt asked David whether he "cared" for other people. I think the answer to that - logical rather than emotional - is that yes, one cares for humanity's survival and sanity (to whatever degree that can be established) because consciousness is necessary for the propagation and survival of Wisdom. People matter in that sense. If you're a Courier by trade and you don't care for your vehicle you may as well look for another trade.
Dan Rowden
Dan Rowden