The affirmative nature of femininity

[Kevin Solway]

In simple terms, I define the masculine to be that in us which seeks greatness.

In achieving greatness, what is the purpose of achievement

The initial purpose is happiness and security for the self, through self-empowerment.

and how is this “greatness” not ego driven?

It is always ego-driven at first.

But if the desire for greatness is maintained, and doesn't dwindle, then the ego ends up consuming itself through its own hunger for power through truth.

You say to be rid of all feminine and masculine, reaching beyond both is to be enlightened…so greatness equals enlightenment?

Yes.

Greatness denotes an ego quality, so who would determine this greatness other than the self that has achieved it to know it existed at all?

Greatness is not necessarily an ego (ie, delusional) quality. It is just a value. People without egos can still have values.

One person's greatness is another person's failure. A fully enlightened Buddha might think that he has been fortunate in having been able to achieve something great (in having arrived at the Ultimate Understanding), but a rich man with ten wives, or a Christian priest, might think of the Buddha as being no more than a worthless tramp.

It is the active principle and incorporated into it are the traditional masculine qualities of idealism, courage, persistence, single-mindedness, rationality, independence, and the desire to dominate.

The feminine, on the other hand, is that part of us which is easily contented and loves going with the flow. It incorporates the qualities of unconsciousness, submissiveness, passiveness, absorption in immediacy, indulgence in emotional pleasure, scatteredness, and the desire to minimize one's existence.

Why not a balance of the two?

Because I see all the "feminine" qualities listed above as negative, undesirable, and bad, with respect to my values.

Without the feminine to reflect the masculine qualities, how does one know one has reached this pinnacle?

It is true that without "unconsciousness" we would not be aware of "consciousness". But things like rocks are unconscious, as is my fingernail, and each of the cells in my body. So there are plenty enough unconscious things around without preserving it in our own behaviour as well.

For instance, courage cannot be shown unless fear exists.

True. A fully enlightened Buddha never shows any courage because he never has any fear. But he needed courage to ascend to his enlightened state. Courage is like a ladder that you use, and then discard once you've used it.

Likewise, domination is non-existent if no one is passive and/or submissive…someone has to have the feminine traits to express the masculine.

Yes. Only a person with weaknesses can have a desire to dominate over and eliminate their weaknesses. But once a person has no weaknesses, then there is no need for domination. Such a person can be said to have outgrown their "masculinity" (in the narrow sense).

Now, in achieving this enlightenment, you discard all notions, which is to say that neither are ideal. I take it that none at all is preferential but that masculinity is the route to get there. So, it would seem that there are two choices: balance of the two or none at all.

As masculinity increases, femininity decreases. As masculinity increases, consciousness increases. But when consciousness is complete, and there is nothing more to conquer (other than the Universe), then in a sense, we can speak of the "masculinity" (which was tainted with ego), being retired, having done its job, and now a superior form of Control takes over all the reigns. (This is of course no more than the pure and untainted form of masculinity)

In most cases, women can only ape masculinity and only then under certain specific conditions (which, ultimately, are created and sustained by men).

Explain what you mean by this.

Even when women appear to be masculine, and significantly conscious, it is often found to be an illusion brought-on by wishful thinking. The environment in which this illusion happens is a male-created one, and boils down to essentially man creating an image of himself.

With feminism, now women are also being taught that they must also work outside this protective barrier while still attending to the inside as well, therefore they do both. How do you interpret this perspective?

I think women should decide for themselves what they want to do, rather than responding passively to external forces, like feminism.

Do you not think that after all the pomp and circumstance surrounding marriage and child-rearing is over that women evolve into something different than your categorical norm for woman?

I don't think they will anytime soon, as it hasn't happened in the past. But there's always hope.

[Kevin Solway]

The "subtle mental habits" are of course subtle tendencies of the mind to view things as inherently existing.

That is because they clearly do inherently exist at the time of observation by an observer.

It depends what you mean by "inherently exist".

Things certainly appear to us, and that appearance, in itself, is a kind of valid "inherent existence".

They are just playing the "the ends justifies the means game", which is by stating nothing exists

We certainly don't believe that nothing exists, otherwise we wouldn't bother writing in to the forum, or doing podcasts.

then this means all personal obligation and meaning ceases, from which freedom arises.

I personally believe it is extremely important that each individual does everything they can to become as wise as possible, and eliminate all mistaken thinking from their lives. I believe that people should immediately stop wasting their lives doing worthless jobs, etc, and start to apply their lives to doing something worthwhile.

[clyde]

Jamesh;

Thank you for pointing to the term “inherent”. The phrase “inherently existing” appears in many Buddhist texts and I use it too. I agree with you that the term “inherent”, as used (or misused), implies the property of permanency. But I think it is intended to mean uncaused by others and imply a separate entity distinct from others. Such an entity, uncaused and separate, would be permanent.

The point is not that things don't exist; they do, but they exist conditionally and because things exist conditionally, they are not permanent.

clyde

[clyde]

Kevin;

I believe that people should immediately stop wasting their lives doing worthless jobs, etc, and start to apply their lives to doing something worthwhile.

I wonder what, besides "seeking the Truth", you think is worthwhile doing. I wonder if you think there are any worthwhile jobs.

clyde

[Gretchen]

While David speaks of the male holding more deep rooted masculine qualities and briefly alluded to men being raised a certain way, are these masculine and feminine qualities inherent or environmentally developed…or both?

In achieving greatness, what is the purpose of achievement and how is this “greatness” not ego driven?

The initial purpose is happiness and security for the self, through self-empowerment.

It is always ego-driven at first.

But if the desire for greatness is maintained, and doesn't dwindle, then the ego ends up consuming itself through its own hunger for power through truth.

I thought you guys weren’t into self-hood…or is this a stage before one migrates to no self? Once consuming itself one becomes truth, one with God? What type of truth instigates a hunger of power? Though power hungry, once you began to realize the truth would you also begin to understand that you were nothing and relinquish your existence to God?

Greatness is not necessarily an ego (ie, delusional) quality. It is just a value. People without egos can still have values.

There I go using generic words again…yes delusional fits better. It is a value that expresses measurement which leads to that which measures and standards of relative measure. So for instance your level of perfect greatness may be lower than what I may deem to be perfect greatness, therefore, you could consider yourself great aka enlightened, when in my estimation you are not.

One person's greatness is another person's failure. A fully enlightened Buddha might think that he has been fortunate in having been able to achieve something great (in having arrived at the Ultimate Understanding), but a rich man with ten wives, or a Christian priest, might think of the Buddha as being no more than a worthless tramp.

Yes, I am fond of that statement: One person's greatness is another person's failure which you used in describing genius where an idea of one could be genius for one but mediocrity for another...it is truly in the application of the idea. The greatness deemed by both men is faulty. It is one thing to have an idea, anyone can come up with them, but true genius is knowing what to do with it...wise living.

Well, you have made it a two part issue: 1) different ideas of what great is, and 2) if given great is the same idea…I am ignorant of Buddhism, so I will use walking as an example. If we establish that great is equivalent to the amount of miles walked by a person…I may decide that walking 70 miles makes one great, while your estimation is 60…but Clyde’s is 82. Then are you not saying that your measure of great is a personal measure validated by yourself and no other? Is greatness something that is self-affirming then and has no affect on others? If so, then you cannot say that you are greater than another because your measure of value is self-imposed versus universal. In the universal sense, though, I may think you greater because I have only walked 15 miles, and even though my level is 70, you still have walked 60 which far exceeds what I have accomplished but in Clyde’s eyes you are deficient still. So, God who is perfection and has walked nth miles sees us all as deficient and none as enlightened.

I would not go so far as to say that a Christian priest (Catholicism) would deem Buddhists worthless tramps, would you? Isn’t that kind of harsh criticism? I realize the nature of priests as I grew up in a Catholic environment, and while some may think such a thing, not all would…they may think he is misguided, but not a worthless tramp. But, then again, I am now thinking for a priest, as I am not one, perhaps I should stop fighting a battle of which I am not a party to.

Because I see all the "feminine" qualities listed above as negative, undesirable, and bad, with respect to my values.
So, are you fully conscious at all times?

Are there never occasions where submission and passivity is the greater road to achieving a goal? For instance, in protesting a form of injustice, would you take:
1) The route of violence, clearly a masculine judgement, without the feminine undertone of absorption in immediacy (if I am interpreting this correctly)…carefully plotted, planned with courage, single-mindedness, rationality…
2) Or the route of passive resistence, a more feminine/masculine balanced approach?

While we are on this issue: clarify absorption in immediacy.

Indulgence in emotional pleasure is something I understand why you might find it undesirable as it is erratic and never fulfilling…yet what of emotional pain, the same? Yet surely pleasure and pain, spiritual love and suffering, are quite masculine as they deal in idealism, yes? So, then it is emotion that is feminine, not necessarily pleasure and pain.

Define scatteredness. Do you think that this scatteredness is due to the numerous roles a woman holds in life versus that of a masculine man?

When desiring to minimize one’s existence is stated does this mean a desire to minimize one’s importance in the scheme of things…being involved versus not being involved?

It is true that without "unconsciousness" we would not be aware of "consciousness". But things like rocks are unconscious, as is my fingernail, and each of the cells in my body. So there are plenty enough unconscious things around without preserving it in our own behaviour as well.

Kevin, even a feminine woman is more conscious than a rock or a fingernail. If you say this isn’t true, you are exaggerating your point. Feminine does not equal rock. Rocks and fingernails do not indulge in pleasure. Rocks and fingernails do not submit to you, it takes will to do that…they have no will. All women have to determine by thought how they will react to any given situation which takes conscious awareness of choice. How they choose determines the masculine or feminine quality within them. If one is enlightened, based on how I interpret the definition, the conscious being knows what to do without any thought, for he understands cause and effect. While I am not ready to concede that a balance of both is not a good thing…I will concede that too much of the feminine is not good…and should not be emulated either.

Yes. Only a person with weaknesses can have a desire to dominate over and eliminate their weaknesses. But once a person has no weaknesses, then there is no need for domination. Such a person can be said to have outgrown their "masculinity" (in the narrow sense).

So masculinity, in a sense, is weakness also…interesting. So the balance and temperance of the masculine with the feminine is just rolling around in the dirt…still physical not spiritual.

As masculinity increases, femininity decreases. As masculinity increases, consciousness increases. But when consciousness is complete, and there is nothing more to conquer (other than the Universe), then in a sense, we can speak of the "masculinity" (which was tainted with ego), being retired, having done its job, and now a superior form of Control takes over all the reigns. (This is of course no more than the pure and untainted form of masculinity)

God. So when Jesus Christ showed compassion and love, these were ideals not feminine characteristics…yes, I think I can see this.

Is this why you guys seem to, but not really, attack women, in order to flesh this godliness out into the open? It is not necessary to answer that question but, you have to know that it sometimes may backfire and have the effect of creating women who are bullies and mean…which to me is not masculine and certainly not Godly. Where I work there are two women in “control” positions. One of them wields power by exerting her employed status as a condition of why she is right, while the other uses wisdom…force over wisdom. It seems to me that the more masculine, the more force…the more Godly, the more wisdom.

Another way it backfires is that you get people on this forum who because they are ignored by women in real life play this ignorant game of women bashing when they have no idea what they are talking about.

Even when women appear to be masculine, and significantly conscious, it is often found to be an illusion brought-on by wishful thinking. The environment in which this illusion happens is a male-created one, and boils down to essentially man creating an image of himself.

So it is the wishful thinking of the man to have a masculine woman? So, by attending to this forum, you are in effect wishfully thinking all women here to become masculine? Is this not one of those “herd” kind of things…in order to fit in, the woman adopts the man’s ideals rather than having any original thought of her own? Isn’t this a bit egotistic to say such a thing? I think one of the mistakes you guys make is generalizing woman too much. Do you think the world would fall apart if there were no men? Other than procreation, I dare say some of us would survive…remember the moon and the happy male scientists? Picture females instead…it could happen. (you most likely are laughing right now)

Its like this…when I am riding in the car with any male, I do not concern myself with directions or maps because I am not driving…unless he asks for assistance, I am just passive. However, when I am driving myself someplace, I am fully cognizant of maps, directions and very proactive. Perhaps this very pre-60’s notion of a woman’s place that is engrained in society, even in women still, as if she is a frail helpless creature whose sole ambition is to marry, have children, and be supported the rest of her days, were to stop today, they may begin to realize their masculine abilities.

I think women should decide for themselves what they want to do, rather than responding passively to external forces, like feminism.

Kevin, you are right there is a distinction between what someone does and what someone is told to do. I recall being a token female at a CPA firm. It’s not that I was forced by feminism to get a job, frankly, I had to eat and pay the rent…necessity was my reason. However, the feminist movement had raged and set a course so it became policy that there must be females on board in upwardly mobile professions lest EEOC would breathe down their neck. Now sexual discrimination is not that big of deal anymore…back then it was. Not that I was in any way threatening (I am not a feminist) to use this against them, with the male/female ratio at the firm it was not surprising why I may have been hired over any other applicant…I was not, at the time, that experienced in accounting, but I had enough of the right qualifications and was a token of good faith to the powers that be.

What made it even more ludicrous, and talk about aping, I had friendships with the secretaries. I was told by one of my female peers that if I knew what was good for me, I wouldn't associate with the secretaries because then the men may think me one and treat me differently. I couldn't believe someone was actually telling me that I needed to pick and choose with whom I conversed based on some man's estimation of my worth. I, of course, ignored her. When the time came for a project I had due and it ran after normal working hours, these ladies stayed late in order to help me get my project out. Who was the more masculine here?

Do you not think that after all the pomp and circumstance surrounding marriage and child-rearing is over that women evolve into something different than your categorical norm for woman?

I don't think they will anytime soon, as it hasn't happened in the past. But there's always hope.

I could bring up a Hume-ism with that statement. How old are you anyhow…I can’t keep up with people around here – some have to be in high school. Just based on what you have written, you have to have lived life a bit, but truly the 70’s generation that burst forth from the pre-60’s mentality type family structure have to be starting to come of age for this development…don’t they?

If you think of women on the scale of humanity and the low level position she has been in since the 19th century, aren't you being a bit judgmental of women? Do you not think that there has been a progression of enlightenment in women? I mean before the vote, they were mere property. So if you take the time that they have had any say in anything which is about 85 years, do you not think the masculine in women has progressed some? Or is it their fault for not being masculine all along that they allowed themselves in this pickle?

[Laird]

Because I see all the "feminine" qualities listed above as negative, undesirable, and bad, with respect to my values.

The purpose of values is to affirm human nature. If your values lead you to view femininity as undesirable, then review the value that you place in women, because...

[Y]ou get people on this forum who because they are ignored by women in real life play this ignorant game of women bashing when they have no idea what they are talking about.

...otherwise you as an intelligent man will be leading others into needless self-denigration (to denigrate a woman as a man is to denigrate yourself: we are complementary aspects of the same soul).

--
Replies to Leyla and passthrough forthcoming.

[Laird]

Of course you can seek to influence [a community]...but example and action is better than counsel. Telling someone that they shouldn't think of themselves as better may fall on deaf ears a lot more than you think.

In a forum made up of words, example and action is counsel.

In my experience, befriending someone "as is" and once a mutual trust is gained, you can both start working on each others beams and specks, but even then it isn't (or shouldn't )really a conscious thing nor is it done by your own will.

Right, and this is why the idea of differentiating levels of consciousness is not particularly useful: our consciousnesses are guided despite our belief in free will.

It seems you are strangling yourself on reflection. Have you ever thought or been told that you were too nice, too positive?

Yes to both sentences. I see no better way.

There are a lot of not nice and negative people out in the world and they would look upon this gentleness and kindness with extreme distrust, thus in turn, treating you shabbily.

I am fortunate enough that mostly, when such people meet me, they recognise my good intentions. Not always, but mostly. Sometimes when they are not, I am flexible enough to act "strong" according to their definition, and so to stimulate trust. Sometimes, but not always.

y your outlook, you may have changed something within [the grouchy person] without ever even knowing you did a thing at all. Therefore, this notion of a positive feedback loop is not a viable thing to expect out of anyone...you may never know the impact you have on others.

Beautifully expressed. :-)

While Leyla is correct in stating that there is nothing wrong with having a self, too much reflection on the self and not enough living can do a person damage.

Many paths, one destination. Yes, excessive self-reflection can lead to insanity; on the other hand, it can lead to realisation of the capacity for universal love.

L: And: "[o]utside influencing the inside [causes trouble]"? Perhaps so, yet does not also outside influence show us what is real within us?

P: Hmmm, not really because who can know what your intentions are? Who can really know what is in your mind? Are there not misperceptions abounding around you in relationships with others?

Does this not come down to trust in God? I have seen enough goodwill in other people to have cultivated this trust.

The fact is that once you recognize God as the driving force in life, you have no free will...and although you float in and out of what this forum terms "consciousness", when you do have those moments of clarity you realize what has happened. God has put you in "check." At the moment, you may have not understood but later, if you have clarity of thought, you realize what happened. In essence, this "judgement" is learned and realized from God.

I'd like to think that God would have put it in those very words. This is why I argue that differentiating levels of consciousness is meaningless.

L: "People are flux" and our "ability to love them ... comes from God"? Wonderful, yes!

P: :-)

While we're on the warm and fuzzies, let me tell you that you have been speaking a lot of wonderful sense in this thread, especially in the replies beyond the post that I am responding to. Keep up the strong and warm position.

However, I thought the issue was: is fear necessarily bad and is confidence in uncertainty necessarily good? I say no to both.

Let's take a balanced approach then: fear can be debilitating but it can also alert us to danger; confidence can help us to assert love but in excess it encourages us to push perspectives that we have no real understanding of.

L: Once we have found right, then we can find better... I am part of we. (in other words, yes, I am trying to change people)

P: Deliberately? You may be disappointed in your attempts for you may never see whom you really affect in life...and, in truth, it is not you that changes anyone.

Yes, you have made those points already. What I meant was this:

When I express myself clearly, I demonstrate to you the insight in my position, which you might incorporate into your own. When I express myself originally, I demonstrate to myself and the world new positions, and so is thought advanced.

In both of these actions of expression change is effected.

--
What it might be like to be loved by greatness! All things are great.

[Laird]

Leyla: Thing is, Laird, people like you do my head in.

Laird: Mission accomplished. :-)

Leyla: Your mission is/was to do my head in?

Be your head done in but that you are thinking hard, and probably of that which is foreign and new. So do we evolve.

And the affirmation that all people have good intentions is meant to keep in check the bad intentions of those who would kill and torture the random killers and torturers for the sake of safety?

That is the purpose of jails and mental institutions: for both the misguided and for those who seek to bring misguidance upon them in return.

Where and for whom in all of this, Laird, is the balm of your good intentions meant to do its work?

The affirmation is to progress you and I to the point that we discard evil as unnecessary, and in doing so lead others to the same act. Evil only exists because we give it our attention.

Your thinking is too narrow, too local--too domestic, for me.

That sentence surprises me. My thinking is as broad as I can conceive of it.

Methinks Laird needs a few good, hard slaps, not friendly jabs.

Let us then explore our sado-masochistic natures...

I admit, however, it's very difficult to slap the nice guys.

...or perhaps not.

--
Sexuality is God's gift. To give is to receive.

[Laird]

Laird: no one is ever wrong in an absolute sense (but I could be wrong...).

Kevin: Yes, you are wrong. If a person says that "A" is identical with "B", based on the definition that "A" is entirely different to "B", you can say they are absolutely wrong.

You might be able to. All that I can say is that I cannot yet imagine how that person might be right.

Laird: all things are equally right.

Kevin: This statement is simply pointless, and nobody believes it even for a second - not even yourself - otherwise you wouldn't be trying to correct the opinions of others, which you see as less right than your own.

I am trying to show the way that I view things, which other people might or might not find useful. In some ways, I do view my opinions as "right". That mere fact does not make them right.

--
The right way to view things is from all perspectives. That is God's view.

[Kevin Solway]

are these masculine and feminine qualities inherent or environmentally developed…or both?

All are caused by Nature: genetics, upbringing, environment, etc.

But if the desire for greatness is maintained, and doesn't dwindle, then the ego ends up consuming itself through its own hunger for power through truth.

I thought you guys weren’t into self-hood…or is this a stage before one migrates to no self?

That's right.

A person has to have a strong ego and a strong self to have the confidence to seek the absolute truth. Without it, they aren't going anywhere.

What type of truth instigates a hunger of power?

The truth of the existence of the ego instigates a hunger for power.

Though power hungry, once you began to realize the truth would you also begin to understand that you were nothing and relinquish your existence to God?

Yes.

Are you not saying that your measure of great is a personal measure validated by yourself and no other?

All values are like this.

Is greatness something that is self-affirming then and has no affect on others?

All things affect all others.

If so, then you cannot say that you are greater than another because your measure of value is self-imposed versus universal.

We must always make judgements based on our own values. Let's say that you value truth, but nobody else in the world does. It is your moral duty to continue to value truth, in spite of everyone else. That is the essence of "character" or "soul".

You may be greater than others at being truthful, but they are greater than you at being untruthful.

I would not go so far as to say that a Christian priest (Catholicism) would deem Buddhists worthless tramps, would you?

Yes. A Christian priest would have no comprehension of an enlightened person (eg, someone like Jesus). If a Christian priest were actually to meet Jesus, they would overlook him as some kind of extreme eccentric or lunatic.

So, are you fully conscious at all times?

No.

Are there never occasions where submission and passivity is the greater road to achieving a goal?

Never.

Complete consciousness is always the best way. But "complete consciousness" doesn't mean being agressive, pushy, or impatient - it just means being realistic. Turning the other cheek can be a perfectly conscious, rational act.

For instance, in protesting a form of injustice, would you take:
1) The route of violence, clearly a masculine judgement, without the feminine undertone of absorption in immediacy (if I am interpreting this correctly)…carefully plotted, planned with courage, single-mindedness, rationality…

Keep in mind that it was "masculine judgement" that created the justice system, which is an attempt to go beyond violence.

2) Or the route of passive resistence, a more feminine/masculine balanced approach?

"Turning the other cheek" (ie, patience) might work, but sometimes physical action may be necessary. A fully conscious decision must be made, and will be informed by the particular circumstances.

While we are on this issue: clarify absorption in immediacy.

Living in the moment. Acting unconsciously, without thinking, and without full consideration of causes and consequences.

So, then it is emotion that is feminine, not necessarily pleasure and pain.

The more conscious the pleasure and pain is, the more masculine.

Define scatteredness.

Inability to be consistent over time. Forgetfulness. Lack of purpose, goals, and drive. Easily distracted.

Do you think that this scatteredness is due to the numerous roles a woman holds in life versus that of a masculine man?

I think there are many reasons for it - one if which is a woman's physical brain structure and hormones.

Another cause is men's preference for women.

When desiring to minimize one’s existence is stated does this mean a desire to minimize one’s importance in the scheme of things…being involved versus not being involved?

Sort of. More like not-existing versus existing. Being a passenger rather than a Creator.

Kevin, even a feminine woman is more conscious than a rock or a fingernail.

Yes, slightly.

Rocks and fingernails do not submit to you, it takes will to do that…they have no will.

It doesn't take will to submit. It requires will to fight and stand up for yourself. A person without will submits to everything.

Another way it backfires is that you get people on this forum who because they are ignored by women in real life play this ignorant game of women bashing when they have no idea what they are talking about.

Certainly. But these men can't normally sustain it for very long, since they are too dependent on the approval of women.

So, by attending to this forum, you are in effect wishfully thinking all women here to become masculine?

I wish for all people to become more conscious, but I wouldn't call that "wishful thinking", because I'm more realistic than that.

Is this not one of those “herd” kind of things…in order to fit in, the woman adopts the man’s ideals rather than having any original thought of her own?

I think the type of things we say on this forum makes a herd-like mentality rather difficult.

Do you think the world would fall apart if there were no men?

Without men, the human race would go back to tribal living in grass huts and collecting berries. There would probably be no more Universities, space program, hospitals, computers, etc.

they may begin to realize their masculine abilities.

I agree that women would become more conscious if they are were thrust into the position of having to take more control.

love is an element of necessity in growth….for any child, male or female.

I would much rather children be brought up in an environment of truth, understanding, caring, respect, and Nature. It would make them feel a lot more secure than being brought up in an environment of "love" - which is a very shaky and insubstantial thing.

but truly the 70’s generation that burst forth from the pre-60’s mentality type family structure have to be starting to come of age for this development…don’t they?

Seemingly not.

Do you not think that there has been a progression of enlightenment in women?

If there has been any, it has been only minimal.

Or is it their fault for not being masculine all along that they allowed themselves in this pickle?

It's not their fault, since men have selected for women who are not like themselves, who are feminine and unconscious, and who give men a holiday from themselves.

[Kevin Solway]

All things are equally right.

. . . In some ways, I do view my opinions as "right".

Yes, but you say that other people's views are equally as right as your own, and yet everyone knows that you don't actually believe this, because it is obvious that you believe your views to be more right than the views of some other people.

In other words, your actions are not in accordance with your words.

The right way to view things is from all perspectives. That is God's view.

Don't you think it is just a touch arrogant of you to claim to know what God's view is?

[Laird]

Laird: All things are equally right.

. . . In some ways, I do view my opinions as "right".

Kevin: Yes, but you say that other people's views are equally as right as your own, and yet everyone knows that you don't actually believe this, because it is obvious that you believe your views to be more right than the views of some other people.

In other words, your actions are not in accordance with your words.

You're not recognising that the same word in different contexts points to different meanings, which is one reason why I used quotation marks around "right" above.

When I say that all things are equally right I mean that I have no ultimate means of determining absolute right, and that I therefore believe in the probability that all beliefs have equal "rightness". When I say that I view my own opinions as right, I mean that I make a value judgement that some of my beliefs are more useful or plausible than other beliefs that another person might hold. That's not to make them more right in an absolute sense, just more useful or plausible (right in a relative sense).

But again, I am open to the possibility that there is an absolute right, in which case I would discard my view that all things are equally right. I just haven't seen any evidence of it yet - indeed, the paradoxical nature of life suggests to me that it is more likely that reality is multi-layered; that infinitely many interpretations can be seen in the one sequence of events.

Laird: The right way to view things is from all perspectives. That is God's view.

Kevin: Don't you think it is just a touch arrogant of you to claim to know what God's view is?

I make no claims, I merely express possibilities.

--
The lesson to be learnt is confidence in the turmoil of uncertainty.

[Leyla Shen]

I know what it is that does my head in! It’s your picture. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with it!)

The sunlight on your hair, your soft smile and the sound of your gentle words on the air….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbkxfuHlcq8

[Kevin Solway]

I make no claims, I merely express possibilities.

In that case I think your should make your language more clear. For example, you should say,

"It is possible that I make no claims, and merely express possibilties."

Likewise, instead of stating "All things are equally right", you should say, "I currently think that I believe that it is possible that all things may be equally right - and it may equally possible that the opposite is the case."

When I say that I view my own opinions as right, I mean that I make a value judgement that some of my beliefs are more useful or plausible than other beliefs that another person might hold.

You believe that your views are more right than theirs. Therefore all people can't be equally right.

If all people (and presumably all things) were equally right then "right" doesn't mean anything at all, and it is a completely useless concept - unless your goal is to destroy all values. That is the only context in which it might be called a useful concept.

[Laird]

I know what it is that does my head in! It’s your picture. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with it!)

It was a toss-up between that and an image of me sitting cross-legged in the middle of a dirt walking trail, drinking from a pink bowl that obscured my face entirely leaving only a halo of hair. I went with the unobscured picture, even though it lacks the quirk value of the other photograph.

The sunlight on your hair, your soft smile and the sound of your gentle words on the air….

A sudden sweetness rides the air. It seems that we read from the same book after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbkxfuHlcq8

Those harmonies transcend time, don't they?

What it would be to have been alive in those days of shared idealism!

--
Masculinity is proving another wrong; femininity is showing another right.

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, Laaaaird! I don’t believe I’ve been so mystified or felt so misunderstood in ages, you curious fellow. The not-so-mystical news is that our discussions continue to fuel an impending dissertation on reflections...

(Somebody pack me a cool, hukkah smoothie, God damn it.)

I wonder if you ever heard this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3AvigRGakA

Heh :)

[Gretchen]

Responses to Kevin's Comments:

The truth of the existence of the ego instigates a hunger for power.

Do people deny the existence of the ego? Is this like someone who doesn’t realize they actually have one? I’m not saying this very well…if one is masculine, one is dominating, single-minded…which can lead to some very nasty behavior…I think you said creation AND destruction, but if they do not realize this in themselves then it is of no benefit to them?

We must always make judgements based on our own values. Let's say that you value truth, but nobody else in the world does. It is your moral duty to continue to value truth, in spite of everyone else. That is the essence of "character" or "soul".

You may be greater than others at being truthful, but they are greater than you at being untruthful.

But in acknowledging one’s greatness over others - is this still not in the strong ego state? Would one who was truly great realize they were nothing, but for God, and through this realization be everything…but boast only by God within them? Paul really made the distinction about boasting through Christ…not of himself. (I realize this is deification of Christ, which you may decry, but for the sake of argument…)

Yes. A Christian priest would have no comprehension of an enlightened person (eg, someone like Jesus). If a Christian priest were actually to meet Jesus, they would overlook him as some kind of extreme eccentric or lunatic.

Yes, sadly, you most likely are correct on this one…one reason I left the church several years ago…among many.

Complete consciousness is always the best way. But "complete consciousness" doesn't mean being agressive, pushy, or impatient - it just means being realistic. Turning the other cheek can be a perfectly conscious, rational act.

OK…this is beginning to become clearer. I see your point.

Quote:
For instance, in protesting a form of injustice, would you take:
1) The route of violence, clearly a masculine judgement, without the feminine undertone of absorption in immediacy (if I am interpreting this correctly)…carefully plotted, planned with courage, single-mindedness, rationality…


Keep in mind that it was "masculine judgement" that created the justice system, which is an attempt to go beyond violence.

Attempt at justice, but not always just. I know quite well the justice system and the corruption that is integrated within it. You know this too…I don’t consider that a good answer, but will defer to the “complete consciousness” answer above as being the rationale.

Quote:
While we are on this issue: clarify absorption in immediacy.


Living in the moment. Acting unconsciously, without thinking, and without full consideration of causes and consequences.

So any act such as the people on the hijacked plane that was headed for DC, would have been feminine? Immediacy was needed not long reflections about the consequences. Heroic effort is immediacy almost to the point of instinct…is this feminine?

So, then it is emotion that is feminine, not necessarily pleasure and pain.

The more conscious the pleasure and pain is, the more masculine, but not necessarily good, just that you are aware of what you are doing and the implications.

Define scatteredness.

Inability to be consistent over time. Forgetfulness. Lack of purpose, goals, and drive. Easily distracted.

This is not true for all women and I would even venture that 75-80% are not scattered.

Do you think that this scatteredness is due to the numerous roles a woman holds in life versus that of a masculine man?

I think there are many reasons for it - one if which is a woman's physical brain structure and hormones.

I know a lot of men like this…in fact, the more roles a man plays, the more he is involved in, the more he tends to be scattered as well. I don’t think this quality is gender necessitated.

Another cause is men's preference for women

Explain, I’m not getting the connection. Are you saying that because men prefer women this is a cause for their scatteredness? I don't see how it follows.

When desiring to minimize one’s existence is stated does this mean a desire to minimize one’s importance in the scheme of things…being involved versus not being involved?

Sort of. More like not-existing versus existing. Being a passenger rather than a Creator.

Fair enough, I get the distinction…and agree.

Kevin, even a feminine woman is more conscious than a rock or a fingernail.

Yes, slightly.

That was a half-hearted concession, Kevin, but I’ll accept it.

Rocks and fingernails do not submit to you, it takes will to do that…they have no will.


It doesn't take will to submit. It requires will to fight and stand up for yourself. A person without will submits to everything.

Yes, in some cases it does. When knowing the better part of rationality is submission rather than fighting because the result will end as it should, the means may require submission…this would mean that you would go against standing up for yourself and will yourself to do what is appropriate…long term gain over short term loss….Sometimes fighting and standing up for yourself yields very little against someone with more power (who may be wrong)…sometimes one must let things go for a time, and approach the issue differently. However, if one does not have will, they will submit to everything, but it does not follow that submission does not require will…it can.

I wish for all people to become more conscious, but I wouldn't call that "wishful thinking", because I'm more realistic than that.

Fair enough.

I think the type of things we say on this forum makes a herd-like mentality rather difficult.

But do you think that there are women now and/or in the past, who have acquiesced to the forum’s philosophy in “aping” the masculine here? I suppose that it would be like those guys who accept approval from women in that they could not sustain it for long.

Without men, the human race would go back to tribal living in grass huts and collecting berries. There would probably be no more Universities, space program, hospitals, computers, etc.

I think you are wrong. There are numerous examples of women who started schools without the help and assistance of men, nuns who ventured out into unchartered areas to start schools without the assistance of the diocese…which they did on purpose to maintain control and do to this day. Kevin, please do not close your eyes to the things, although maybe not so grand as men may have done, that women can do and have done on their own initiative and at their peril. It is close-minded and unfair.

I would much rather children be brought up in an environment of truth, understanding, caring, respect, and Nature. It would make them feel a lot more secure than being brought up in an environment of "love" - which is a very shaky and insubstantial thing.

I did not raise her just with love either, there is a lot more that goes into raising a child than just love…it takes a lot of reasoning, discipline and patience. Love alone will not a person make…you are right.

but truly the 70’s generation that burst forth from the pre-60’s mentality type family structure have to be starting to come of age for this development…don’t they?

Seemingly not.

Pity.

Do you not think that there has been a progression of enlightenment in women?

If there has been any, it has been only minimal.

Another pity.

Or is it their fault for not being masculine all along that they allowed themselves in this pickle?

It's not their fault, since men have selected for women who are not like themselves, who are feminine and unconscious, and who give men a holiday from themselves.

[Shardrol]

I wonder if you ever heard this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3AvigRGakA

Heh :)

Good grief, Leyla, what is that?

It was quite bizarre, especially the juxtaposition of this black-leather-coated creature attempting to be sexy & his conservatively-dressed audience of trained seals. Looking into his utterly vacant eyes was not a happy experience.
.

[Laird]

Oh, Laaaaird! I don’t believe I’ve been so mystified or felt so misunderstood in ages, you curious fellow.

That's funny, I would have thought that a Zen madman would have more power to mystify than a fuzzy-haired proponent of free love. Nevermind, my sister as a child was perpetually frustrated that she could never beat me in an argument too.

Am I still the nice guy now? ;-)

The not-so-mystical news is that our discussions continue to fuel an impending dissertation on reflections...

I look forward to it.

(Somebody pack me a cool, hukkah smoothie, God damn it.)

A Google search for hukkah turned up mostly stories about hookah bars being closed. What in the world is a hukkah smoothie? Anything to do with huckleberries?

I wonder if you ever heard this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3AvigRGakA

Heh :)

Sweet and yet strangely disturbing. I get the impression that he wouldn't mind slapping some sense into the odd stranger.

[Gretchen]

It's not their fault, since men have selected for women who are not like themselves, who are feminine and unconscious, and who give men a holiday from themselves.

I have been thinking about this statement all day, and I believe that it is more true than anything stated in this whole argument.

Quite clearly, man is a prisoner of his masculine nature. To escape it, he must either transcend it relinquishing all will to causality or God, depending on how you look at it (and if he is fortunate) OR he must submit to the more dominant man, become feminine and unconscious. In the interim between God and failure, he must struggle and fight to maintain his masculinity.

When he comes home, he does not want to face more intimidating circumstances, so he chooses a woman who is not conscious, who he can easily dominate without a struggle. He can, in a sense, take a holiday from himself.

I understand this but find it disheartening because I do not think there will ever be a chance, as Kevin flatly stated, for women to achieve these levels…reason being is that women MUST be able to be alone and focused in order to be masculine, and I'm not sure women can handle that aspect. I have been alone for many years, even though I have been married for more years than single and even though I work each day at a job with many people. I sometimes wonder why I am left alone, being that I am surrounded by as many women as men. One day I asked a fellow employee to be honest with me. He told me that frankly, I had a high bar set in my work and personal ethic and it was intimidating to people. Others felt that I would expect out of them what I expect of myself. In some ways, I knew this but hearing it from someone's mouth was stark.

So, it would seem that the only reason why I am still married is because my husband is equally as alone (he is more dominant) but also a loner...so it makes life a little easier, since I am a loner myself. I cannot help but feel some anger in this understanding, but also an acceptance of it at the same time. I do not want to go backwards, but after what has been realized...forwards IS intimidating.

This forum really is FOR men...and now I think I know why. Thank you Kevin for your time.

[Gretchen]

Response to Laird's comments:

In a forum made up of words, example and action is counsel.

Touche, Laird, although, I was speaking of real world application. In your defense, I will say that those WHO ARE SEEKING betterment, will reflect on the advice in any form they get it, those WHO ALREADY BELIEVE themselves to be better may fall on deaf ears. The unfortunate thing about words is that it begins to sound like nagging and even if the person got it the first time and it is floating around in their head not to make any logical connections until a month from now, saying it again and again comes across as nagging.

I have experienced this in raising a child. I find if I tell her something that needs to change, I make sure I am not angry, but calm, and have a sincere discussion about it…one time. She yells and screams at me for a minute, but she takes it in…and in a month or two, changes begin to occur. However, I used to nag…when you are repetitive they tend to not listen to ANYTHING you have to say…and they have a great ability to tune out when it doesn’t interest them. They also have selective memories that when you advised them on something and they did it anyway and now suffer the consequences, suddenly it is: why didn’t you tell me? I did. No, you didn’t. etc. etc… which then taught me how to advise her better.

Right, and this is why the idea of differentiating levels of consciousness is not particularly useful: our consciousnesses are guided despite our belief in free will.

It is interesting you say this because I used to firmly argue, even in my short time on this forum that free will was a definite…but I am beginning to think that free will is an illusion of those who have not brought God on as their driving force. I began to realize this while taking my Intro to Philo class. We had to write a paper on free will and determinism utilizing the thoughts of Viktor Frankl, Radhakrishnan and d’Holbach, who were each, respectively, Jewish, Hindu and determinist/atheist. After studying these men’s philosophy and thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that we are determined by our past, free to make choices for the future, but once God is seen as the driving force, we no longer have free will, but His will.

It seems you are strangling yourself on reflection. Have you ever thought or been told that you were too nice, too positive?

Yes to both sentences. I see no better way.

I used to be trusting and much like this, living in the world and experiencing it as I did, on top of genetics, turned me the other direction. I still don’t see it as a judgment call either way. If it works for you, then great. I believe God works in both.

I am fortunate enough that mostly, when such people meet me, they recognise my good intentions. Not always, but mostly. Sometimes when they are not, I am flexible enough to act "strong" according to their definition, and so to stimulate trust. Sometimes, but not always.

I have noticed this flexibility in later writings since this one…

Many paths, one destination. Yes, excessive self-reflection can lead to insanity; on the other hand, it can lead to realisation of the capacity for universal love.

But there is a balance that must be maintained and one that I addressed initially when you first got here…the fine line between this realization and madness. Universal love requires universal suffering. To me, it seems you cannot have one without the other....thus leading to madness if you cannot take it.

L: And: "[o]utside influencing the inside [causes trouble]"? Perhaps so, yet does not also outside influence show us what is real within us?

P: Hmmm, not really because who can know what your intentions are? Who can really know what is in your mind? Are there not misperceptions abounding around you in relationships with others?

Does this not come down to trust in God? I have seen enough goodwill in other people to have cultivated this trust.

No, some people are not godly people. I have seen enough bad will in other people to have cultivated this mistrust. Don’t get me wrong, every thing is derived from God, evil is an absence of God for God is good. Before anyone jumps, yes, I agree with causality - it does not negate God as a First Cause BUT does cause issue with those who believe that everything (note: difference in way everything is to every thing) is God.

And I do not believe in a Devil…we choose to be absent God, although he is never absent us. If we are inherently good, but do not choose God, then we are absent good and can do bad things. Through cause and effect we learn what poor choices can render, if we are wise, we change…if not, we die.

I'd like to think that God would have put it in those very words. This is why I argue that differentiating levels of consciousness is meaningless.

On the contrary, you must be conscious to realize this action in your life, but it does not follow that you are always conscious. However, I am not familiar with this term that you bring up or who has initiated it for you to speak out against it so…that is, “Differentiating Levels of Consciousness.” Can you get me the thread where this is discussed or explain it to me, otherwise, we may be arguing at cross purposes…because I would tend to agree with them.

While we're on the warm and fuzzies, let me tell you that you have been speaking a lot of wonderful sense in this thread, especially in the replies beyond the post that I am responding to. Keep up the strong and warm position.

Laird, I am what I am…weak and strong, cold and hot but I don’t think I’d ever declare myself a “warm and fuzzy.” I just try to answer what I believe to be true, which has changed since I first came on this forum, began a lot of reading on my own, taking a class…and what the other members, especially Sue Hindmarsh, impressed upon me most…THINKING. I am not surrounded by the types of people on this board, so I was lazy in that area. When I first came, the forum was cold and harsh, but they made me wake up from my slumber. It was difficult to take, but it has been a worthy exercise. I, too, don’t always agree with them, but they represent another side to an issue…one that I may not have considered. Some philosopher said that if you don’t consider all sides, the universal is meaningless.

Let's take a balanced approach then: fear can be debilitating but it can also alert us to danger; confidence can help us to assert love but in excess it encourages us to push perspectives that we have no real understanding of.

Confidence can also assert many other things besides love, but I will concede that one of them could be love. And spiritual love can be an equal danger to be feared …if you are not righteous. If you recognize spiritual love and are not righteous…the sword will be raised – suffering is bound to ensue to force you to make a choice since obviously you are conscious enough to recognize it.

When I express myself clearly, I demonstrate to you the insight in my position, which you might incorporate into your own. When I express myself originally, I demonstrate to myself and the world new positions, and so is thought advanced.

In both of these actions of expression change is effected.

I misunderstood, but isn’t this just the nature of discussion versus a crusade? Some people are on a mission and are hell bent on changing another without listening to the person whom they are trying to change…in effect, they may be trying to change the person who inevitably will change them. As an example, my daughter, who has taught me things I have forgotten, is very loving…she declares herself an atheist, but she has a spiritual type love that I see. She loves people despite their good and bad, she sees past into the person’s soul and has taught me through example some of this. Through her, I have met some interesting characters…she is an artist/musician, so you can only assume how an intense accountant conservative type would act towards any number of these people. She has showed me the good in them, and yes, they are flawed inasmuch as I have my own, but now when I see a tattooed, pierced person…there is no judgment passed anymore….(BTW, despite my “nagging”, she is a tattooed and formerly pierced person)

And I can just see you saying: I told you so, but I do not know you to know your intentions…I still contend that there are those who do not have good intentions…she has learned this too, having been exposed to some bad intentioned people…her trust has been tempered somewhat…and will be tempered even more as life experience increases. You can trust in God BUT not in people…what is the scripture: I am sending you out as sheep among the wolves…?

[Laird]

Kevin: It's not their fault, since men have selected for women who are not like themselves, who are feminine and unconscious, and who give men a holiday from themselves.
[...]
passthrough: When [a man, being a prisoner of his masculine nature] comes home, he does not want to face more intimidating circumstances, so he chooses a woman who is not conscious, who he can easily dominate without a struggle. He can, in a sense, take a holiday from himself.

The problem with generalisations is in trying to decide how to prove that the exceptions do not constitute a contradictory generalisation. Let me provide you with a couple of exceptions:
* one of my cousins is a doctor, extremely intelligent, quick on her feet and perpetually active and inquiring (I gave Kev an opportunity to meet her but he declined it). Her boyfriend is a solicitor, also intelligent and high-achieving. Neither of them is on any form of holiday when they are together: there is constant interplay and exchange of ideas and energy (I imagine though that there are times when they rest comfortably in each other's presence without need for words).
* my uncle owns a large mail-order company. He is a self-confident self-made man. His wife ran a recruitment agency (also self-made) for several years before bearing a child. She is likewise confident to the point of never admitting to a mistake. Again, this couple are far from holidaying in each other's presence: there is plenty of verbal sparring and objective discussion going on that they are mutually challenged by (although they also take comfort and occasional downtime in each other's presence).

The unfortunate thing about words is that it begins to sound like nagging and even if the person got it the first time and it is floating around in their head not to make any logical connections until a month from now, saying it again and again comes across as nagging.

Yes, I've noticed that too. I've been trying hard not to repeat myself needlessly on this forum. Ironically, I will repeat myself now through the mantra: many paths, one destination. My ideal is to show people the different paths by which they can arrive at the point that I wish to emphasise, without actually repeating the point itself.

I have experienced this in raising a child. I find if I tell her something that needs to change, I make sure I am not angry, but calm, and have a sincere discussion about it…one time.

My parents also took this approach to raising my sister and I. We came to trust them and to actively seek their advice because of the manner in which they imparted it.

I'm curious, passthrough, to know how many children you have and what ages they are. Are you willing to share that?

I am beginning to think that free will is an illusion of those who have not brought God on as their driving force. [...] once God is seen as the driving force, we no longer have free will, but His will.

I'm somewhat agnostic on this one. I think that it's possible that God is the driving force whether or not we see him or bring him on as such. However, I've only recently rediscovered my belief in God and my life has been far more positive for it, so in terms of your assertion it may be that by focussing on divinity I invite God's will into my life. That phrase comes across to me as quite weak though - "to invite God's will into my life" - but I'm open to the possibility that it's the reality. Do you also perceive it as a weak phrase? Can you think of a stronger way to phrase/view it?

I used to be trusting and much like this, living in the world and experiencing it as I did, on top of genetics, turned me the other direction. I still don’t see it as a judgment call either way. If it works for you, then great. I believe God works in both.

Agreed. But I like the positive feeling and effects that optimism brings. :-)

Laird: I am fortunate enough that mostly, when such people meet me, they recognise my good intentions. Not always, but mostly. Sometimes when they are not, I am flexible enough to act "strong" according to their definition, and so to stimulate trust. Sometimes, but not always.

passthrough: I have noticed this flexibility in later writings since this one…

Thanks, it's nice to have my intentions and perceptions validated by a third party.

But there is a balance that must be maintained [during self-reflection] and one that I addressed initially when you first got here…the fine line between this realization and madness. Universal love requires universal suffering. To me, it seems you cannot have one without the other....thus leading to madness if you cannot take it.

This is a little tangential in that it doesn't directly address the concept of madness, but I want to share with you an affirmation that I've written that deals in part with the idea of love and suffering. It comes under the heading "Proof of Jesus' love":

To believe that love requires suffering is evil. Is Jesus' death a symbol of evil? To suffer for others is noble. Nobility is good. Good triumphs over evil. Jesus' death on the cross is a symbol of good.

L: And: "[o]utside influencing the inside [causes trouble]"? Perhaps so, yet does not also outside influence show us what is real within us?

P: Hmmm, not really because who can know what your intentions are? Who can really know what is in your mind? Are there not misperceptions abounding around you in relationships with others?

Those are some good points. How about this rephrasing then: does not also outside influence open us up to new possible interpretations of ourselves and of our behaviour?

Laird: Does this not come down to trust in God? I have seen enough goodwill in other people to have cultivated this trust.

passthrough: No, some people are not godly people. I have seen enough bad will in other people to have cultivated this mistrust. [and bringing your concluding words back here where they seem to fit:] You can trust in God BUT not in people…what is the scripture: I am sending you out as sheep among the wolves…?

I think that we can resolve our differences. I will concede that some people have bad intentions if you will concede that God has only good intentions. In this way we get to keep the idea that it is foolish to blindly act on the assumption that others want to lead us to what is immediately beneficial, whilst at the same time maintaining an optimism that we can trust that through God that even the people with bad intentions are leading us all to what is ultimately good.

Don’t get me wrong, every thing is derived from God, evil is an absence of God for God is good.

This statement seems to be consistent with the resolution that I've suggested above.

And I do not believe in a Devil…we choose to be absent God, although he is never absent us.

I like to think that the Devil can only exist when we (God) believe in him/it so I support your belief.

If we are inherently good, but do not choose God, then we are absent good and can do bad things.

Assuming a God of majesty and omnipotence, isn't it more important that God chooses us than that we choose God?

Through cause and effect we learn what poor choices can render, if we are wise, we change…if not, we die.

Survival of the fit...

However, I am not familiar with this term that you bring up or who has initiated it for you to speak out against it so…that is, “Differentiating Levels of Consciousness.” Can you get me the thread where this is discussed or explain it to me, otherwise, we may be arguing at cross purposes…because I would tend to agree with them.

I came across the idea in the second podcast of The Reasoning Show where Nat and Kev discussed whether it is useful/wise to discriminate between people based on consciousness. It was towards the end of the show.

Laird, I am what I am…weak and strong, cold and hot but I don’t think I’d ever declare myself a “warm and fuzzy.”

I was delivered one through you, even if you weren't aware of it.

Some philosopher said that if you don’t consider all sides, the universal is meaningless.

I'd be tempted to phrase it even more strongly as "the universal is all sides."

And spiritual love can be an equal danger to be feared …if you are not righteous. If you recognize spiritual love and are not righteous…the sword will be raised – suffering is bound to ensue to force you to make a choice since obviously you are conscious enough to recognize it.

I'm not sure that I follow your point. Is it even possible to recognise spiritual love without being righteous?

Laird: When I express myself clearly, I demonstrate to you the insight in my position, which you might incorporate into your own. When I express myself originally, I demonstrate to myself and the world new positions, and so is thought advanced.

In both of these actions of expression change is effected.

passthrough: I misunderstood, but isn’t this just the nature of discussion versus a crusade?

Yes, and that's how I would characterise our interactions: as a mutually beneficial discussion. Would you agree?

Some people are on a mission and are hell bent on changing another without listening to the person whom they are trying to change…in effect, they may be trying to change the person who inevitably will change them.

Right, and at the risk of further repetition (I've already presented this in another thread where it was apparently not understood):

Seeking to lead, I experience a shrinking. We lead each other.

And I can just see you saying [over passthrough's discovery of good intentions in her daughter's "different" friends]: I told you so, but I do not know you to know your intentions…I still contend that there are those who do not have good intentions…she has learned this too, having been exposed to some bad intentioned people…her trust has been tempered somewhat…and will be tempered even more as life experience increases.

I think that all of this still fits neatly with the resolution that I proposed. Do you agree?

[Laird]

Laird: I make no claims, I merely express possibilities.

Kevin: In that case I think your should make your language more clear. For example, you should say,

"It is possible that I make no claims, and merely express possibilties."

Likewise, instead of stating "All things are equally right", you should say, "I currently think that I believe that it is possible that all things may be equally right - and it may equally possible that the opposite is the case."

Yes, it's more descriptive but it's not quite as poetic is it? And if I were so blatant in my expression then how would I challenge others, such as yourself, to fully engage with my ideas?

Laird: When I say that I view my own opinions as right, I mean that I make a value judgement that some of my beliefs are more useful or plausible than other beliefs that another person might hold.

Kevin: You believe that your views are more right than theirs. Therefore all people can't be equally right.

If all people (and presumably all things) were equally right then "right" doesn't mean anything at all, and it is a completely useless concept - unless your goal is to destroy all values. That is the only context in which it might be called a useful concept.

Ah, but you stripped off my immediately trailing sentence, which addresses what you've written:

That's not to make them more right in an absolute sense, just more useful or plausible (right in a relative sense).

In other words, there are different senses to "right". People can be equally right in one sense (the absolute), and more or less right in another sense (the relative).

--
Masculinity is the search for better answers; femininity is the satisfaction of the answers it already has.

[Kevin Solway]

Yes, it's more descriptive but it's not quite as poetic is it?

It's more accurate, more honest, and therefore a lot more productive.

If you want to speak in terms of "possibilities" then it would help if you qualifed whatever you are saying with an estimate of what you think the possibility is that what you are saying is true.

For example, you might be 99% sure that you are having thoughts. And you might be only 51% sure about some other matter.

Since you claim to be uncertain about everything you say, it would help the rest of us to know roughtly how uncertain you think you are. For example, how uncertain are you that you are uncertain? 90% certain? 60% certain?

The problem with your current mode of communication is that you may be only 51% sure of what you are saying - or less - in which case we may consider that it is wasting our time to read what you are saying in the first place - especially if we consider that you are behaving as though you are certain of what you are saying - in contradiction to what you are saying with your words.

You believe that your views are more right than theirs. Therefore all people can't be equally right.

That's not to make them more right in an absolute sense, just more useful or plausible (right in a relative sense).

How certain are you of that? 90%? 51%?

You haven't provided any reasons why you think all things are exactly of equal value from the absolute perspective. So your view certainly sounds 100% false.

[Laird]

If you want to speak in terms of "possibilities" then it would help if you qualifed whatever you are saying with an estimate of what you think the possibility is that what you are saying is true.

I am 83.256% certain that qualifying every factual sentence that I make with a probability estimate would be so insufficiently meaningful to readers that it is not worthwhile, and that it would unnecessarily clutter up my communication. If, however, you are serious about this suggestion, then I will play along for a while provided that you do likewise and start the ball rolling.

You haven't provided any reasons why you think all things are exactly of equal value from the absolute perspective. So your view certainly sounds 100% false.

The reason that I provided is that I see no way, and can't imagine how I might find one, of ultimately substantiating any claim. If you want to know what probability I give it that this is indeed the case, then I will drop right into the middle at 50%.