Men commit actions; women commit gestures

[Unidian]

Yes, it seems David has repudiated the views of Arch-Sage Solway regarding Weininger, at least to some extent. Apparently the brilliant and never-before-seen exposition of the profound idea that "women are dumb" was not quite enough to land Otto a place among the Fully Realized. Unfortunate, and I'm sure if time travel were possible and the young drama queen could somehow hear it, he would have offed himself at 21 rather than 22. One wonders what Kevin, quite possibly Weininger's biggest proponent in the world today (for real) is to think of this? No doubt it will be a disappointment.

[Shahrazad]

Nat,

Personally, I find being repeatedly accused of holding such a repugnant view despite explicitly denying it repeatedly very bothersome, simply because human psychology is such that if a lie is stated as a fact enough times, people will subconsciously (and in some cases even consciously) begin to believe it.

Nobody here besides Sue believes you have such views. No need to worry or overreact.

[Unidian]

Sher,

Nobody here besides Sue believes you have such views. No need to worry or overreact.

This site has a lot of readers. Not all of them know me. There is an audience to think about.

I don't feel I'm overreacting. As I said, it's a repugnant claim, and she made it multiple times in defiance of all direct statements to the contrary. That is dishonesty and a lack of intellectual integrity worthy of Fox News.

[Dan Rowden]

Weininger's view could only be "dashing" to Sue's ideas if he was right and Sue held that he was right. Sue is proof that his view, as explicitly stated by him, was wrong, at least as an absolute statement. How true is was as a generalisation is as yet impossible to say, though what one can say is that he had no basis for stating it so emphatically (in an empirical sense).

How is she proof of it if we cannot possibly understand she has sufficient psychological masculinity to speak with authority? Are we to take that on your word then? Why should we? Are you asking people to believe that Sue Hindmarsh is enlightened?

I'm not asking you to do anything. Make your own judgements. I've made mine. Even without Sue as a counterexample, Weininger's emphatic stance had no basis as explicitly expressed.

[RobertGreenSky]

What is Genius?

The best way to answer such a question is to describe what genius is not. First and foremost, genius does not necessarily relate to talent. Being exceptionally good at some particular task does not automatically make one a genius. In light of this, people like Albert Einstein and Johann Sebastian Bach were not geniuses, but simply very talented people. Indeed, a genius need not be very talented in any area of life at all. Or if he does have some talent, it would necessarily find its most concentrated expression in the realm of wisdom. Genius is a function of one's relationship with Ultimate Reality and thus is a function of consciousness. The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius. By this definition, people like Jesus, the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and Socrates were geniuses to greater or lesser degree.

- Welcome to Genius Forum

That page links in turn to Quotations on Genius and note the lengthy section Otto Weininger on Genius.

Gee, I don't think someone or some several are playing fair.

[Unidian]

How is Sue a "counterexample?" Are we supposed to buy into the idea that she is behaving in a "masculine" manner in this thread? I suppose from a QRSH perspective, that might be the case. But from where I stand, she simply looks like a woman who is in the grip of a rather pronounced neurosis regarding gender issues, presumably caused by a deep-seated need to remain on good terms with David Quinn (for obvious reasons).

[Dan Rowden]

Um, what would that obvious reason be? A 16 year old son who is essentially his own man? Give me a break. And as I stated, Sue as a counterexample to Weininger is a judgement for the individual to make. His statement was wrong, as expressed, regardless.

[RobertGreenSky]

I'm not asking you to do anything. Make your own judgements. I've made mine. Even without Sue as a counterexample, Weininger's emphatic stance had no basis as explicitly expressed.

In terms of argument you are asking us merely to believe Sue Hindmarsh is enlightened. On Genius Forum, despite the recent disavowals, Otto Weininger is recognized authority. In the absence of countering evidence you have no argument.

[RobertGreenSky]

Um, what would that obvious reason be? A 16 year old son who is essentially his own man? Give me a break. And as I stated, Sue as a counterexample to Weininger is a judgement for the individual to make. His statement was wrong, as expressed, regardless.

It's not wrong simply because you say it's wrong. The support you gave for his being wrong in nowise indicated Sue Hindmarsh possessed sufficient masculine psychology to speak here with authority and absent argument you have as much as admitted you expect everyone to merely believe she possesses it.

[Unidian]

Um, what would that obvious reason be? A 16 year old son who is essentially his own man? Give me a break.

Was this child born 16 years of age through some relativistic miracle of time? Or, more likely, did it take 16 years for him to become 16?

16 long years during which any woman is going to want a father in her son's life... and eventually the things we tell ourselves to get what we need start to become the things we actually believe.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm not asking you to do anything. Make your own judgements. I've made mine. Even without Sue as a counterexample, Weininger's emphatic stance had no basis as explicitly expressed.

In terms of argument you are asking us merely to believe Sue Hindmarsh is enlightened.

I don't need you to believe that to show Weininger was wrong.

On Genius Forum, despite the recent disavowals, Otto Weininger is recognized authority.

Don't be stupid. You're the one with the penchant for such "authorities".

In the absence of countering evidence you have no argument.

There is no basis from which Weininger could make the emphatic (i.e. non contingent) empirical claims that he did. In that sense he was demonstrably wrong. There's no need for further argument.

[Dan Rowden]

Um, what would that obvious reason be? A 16 year old son who is essentially his own man? Give me a break.

Was this child born 16 years of age through some relativistic miracle of time? Or, more likely, did it take 16 years for him to become 16?

16 long years during which any woman is going to want a father in her son's life... and eventually the things we tell ourselves to get what we need start to become the things we actually believe.

Yes, like welfare is legitimate and morally right for people who refuse to work. It's a crap way to argue and you know it.

[David Quinn]

I don't consider him to be a spiritual genius. Never have done. I think he was an exceptional young man, who experimented with philosophy fearlessly, but who died before his genius was fully realized and able to reach maturity. From all appearances, it was his philosophical experimentation, undertaken far too intensely for his body and mind to handle, which killed him.

-

You're having it both ways, David. In this thread he was 'unrealized' but on your website he walks without qualification with 'Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, [and] Eckhart ...' Obviously you finally get caught being wrong about something, so which is the horrible screwup, the website or this thread?

That's a fair point. In many ways, Weininger is the odd man out from that group.

Weininger was a complex character, not easy to categorize. He had a lot of powerful spirituality inside him, but he died too young before he could begin to "negotiate the Great Barrier" and reach enlightenment. Since I consider enlightenment to be the bare minimum requirement before one can qualify as a spiritual genius, it can be reasonably argued that he wasn't a spiritual genius.

On the other hand, he addressed issues and explored areas that no one in the above group did, aside from Kierkegaard. He had a freedom of mind that is very rare, one that strongly echoes genius, and so I include him in the group on that basis.

It should be noted that I also have disagreements with every member of the above group, not just Weininger, despite the fact that I recognize their enlightenment.

David, you're far afield of what's been discussed here. Weininger argued that women - biological women - cannot be geniuses because psychological femininity is forced upon them. That precludes Sue Hindmarsh. Are you asking us to believe both that Otto Weininger was wrong in that respect and that Sue Hindmarsh is enlightened? If he was wrong, why was he wrong? And would you ask us merely to believe that Sue is enlightened?

Well, for the record, I don't consider Sue to be enlightened. She has a pretty good intellectual grasp of reality, but doesn't really believe in it yet. She has yet to negotiate the Great Barrier, although she is aware of its existence.

As far as I know, she has never claimed to be enlightened.

Her knowledge of feminine psychology is her forte. It is outstanding, and I've learnt a lot from her. She is the master in this area.

As for Weininger's views, I'm not convinced of his contention that female psychology is necessarily forced onto one by virtue of simply having a female body. No doubt this happens 99.99% of the time, but I'm not convinced that it necessarily happens 100% of the time. And with advances in genetic technology, biochemistry and childhood development on the horizon, who knows what will be achievable in the future? I'm happy to keep an open mind on the matter.

-

[RobertGreenSky]

I'm not asking you to do anything. Make your own judgements. I've made mine. Even without Sue as a counterexample, Weininger's emphatic stance had no basis as explicitly expressed.

In terms of argument you are asking us merely to believe Sue Hindmarsh is enlightened.

I don't need you to believe that to show Weininger was wrong.

On Genius Forum, despite the recent disavowals, Otto Weininger is recognized authority.

Don't be stupid. You're the one with the penchant for such "authorities".

In the absence of countering evidence you have no argument.

There is no basis from which Weininger could make the emphatic (i.e. non contingent) empirical claims that he did. In that sense he was demonstrably wrong. There's no need for further argument.

Dan, it is not stupid to note that Otto Weininger is recognized authority here. It is however real unfair of you to write as if that were not the case. I have quoted from the Genius Forum introduction - posted by you, Dan - from additional materials here quoting Weininger on genius, and from David Quinn's website in which Quinn placed Weininger in the same boat with 'Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, [and] Nagarjuna'. What we have seen is that despite the earlier recognition of Weininger as authority, for purposes of argument you all bailed, but that you got caught at it. Now it is not any stupidity noting that, it is an honest assessment. Again, it was you who posted that Introduction, Dan. By the way, did Weininger make any empirical claims on adequate authority or did he bullshit all the way through Sex and Character and despite the status you yourself gave him?

Even if we accept that Weininger is wrong how is it that Hindmarsh is right? You are in fact asking us to merely believe she is enlightened but you can't bring yourself to admit it. What evidence have you shown that Sue Hindmarsh possesses sufficient masculine psychology to speak here with authority, and by the way how is it, given Weininger's flubs, that you can establish at all that 'masculine psychology' is necessary for 'enlightenment'? Did the Buddha say that? Did Laozi say that? Did Zhuangzi say that? Did Nagarjuna say that? We know Weininger said it was necessary for genius, but you all have bailed on him.

[Unidian]

Dan,

Yes, like welfare is legitimate and morally right for people who refuse to work. It's a crap way to argue and you know it.

Not necessarily. I've denied that there is an element of self-justification in my position on welfare in general. Why wouldn't there be? Dole-collecting is continuously attacked in society and it's natural for a person to think about ways to defend against those attacks, unless they either either indifferent or secure enough in their views not to care (I'm working on the latter).

To impute psychological motivations is not to refute a position. It doesn't refute Sue's position either - the craziness and ridiculousness of it does that. It just offers some insight as to how a woman might end up believing all sorts of negative things about women - just like Weininger was against women and Jews because he resented his own effeminate bearing and Jewishness.

[Unidian]

Well, for the record, I don't consider Sue to be enlightened.

Oh noez!

Note: WAV files cannot harm computers.

[RobertGreenSky]

I don't consider him to be a spiritual genius. Never have done. I think he was an exceptional young man, who experimented with philosophy fearlessly, but who died before his genius was fully realized and able to reach maturity. From all appearances, it was his philosophical experimentation, undertaken far too intensely for his body and mind to handle, which killed him.

-

You're having it both ways, David. In this thread he was 'unrealized' but on your website he walks without qualification with 'Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, [and] Eckhart ...' Obviously you finally get caught being wrong about something, so which is the horrible screwup, the website or this thread?

That's a fair point. In many ways, Weininger is the odd man out from that group.

Weininger was a complex character, not easy to categorize. He had a lot of powerful spirituality inside him, but he died too young before he could begin to "negotiate the Great Barrier" and reach enlightenment. Since I consider enlightenment to be the bare minimum requirement before one can qualify as a spiritual genius, it can be reasonably argued that he wasn't a spiritual genius.

On the other hand, he addressed issues and explored areas that no one in the above group did, aside from Kierkegaard. He had a freedom of mind that is very rare, one that strongly echoes genius, and so I include him in the group on that basis.

It should be noted that I also have disagreements with every member of the above group, not just Weininger, despite the fact that I recognize their enlightenment.

David, you're far afield of what's been discussed here. Weininger argued that women - biological women - cannot be geniuses because psychological femininity is forced upon them. That precludes Sue Hindmarsh. Are you asking us to believe both that Otto Weininger was wrong in that respect and that Sue Hindmarsh is enlightened? If he was wrong, why was he wrong? And would you ask us merely to believe that Sue is enlightened?

Well, for the record, I don't consider Sue to be enlightened. She has a pretty good intellectual grasp of reality, but doesn't really believe in it yet. She has yet to negotiate the Great Barrier, although she is aware of its existence.

As far as I know, she has never claimed to be enlightened.

Her knowledge of feminine psychology is her forte. It is outstanding, and I've learnt a lot from her. She is the master in this area.

As for Weininger's views, I'm not convinced of his contention that female psychology is necessarily forced onto one by virtue of simply having a female body. No doubt this happens 99.99% of the time, but I'm not convinced that it necessarily happens 100% of the time. And with advances in genetic technology, biochemistry and childhood development on the horizon, who knows what will be achievable in the future? I'm happy to keep an open mind on the matter.

-

I'm tired, David, and I apologize for not picking through the quotation and instead just doing it quickly.

So you are or you are not granting Weininger 'spiritual genius' status? You appear to recognize some sort of 'enlightenment' for him and you do not expressly remove him from that grouping, a rather remarkable one. In that case then whether or not 'spiritual genius' is applied to him, he still as of your last post rides in the same boat with Jesus and Laozi - my conclusion he is here recognized authority was a valid one.

As you know I don't agree with any of Weininger (that I can think of) and I have really enjoyed using him in this fashion. Of course I'm interested in how you will support the necessity of masculine psychology since it doesn't seem to appear in the 'canon', not that I've seen anyway.

Thanks for the opportunity to argue here and I'll look through the threads again later.

[Unidian]

RGS,

So you are or you are not granting Weininger 'spiritual genius' status? You appear to recognize some sort of 'enlightenment' for him and you do not expressly remove him from that grouping, a rather remarkable one. In that case then whether or not 'spiritual genius' is applied to him, he still as of your last post rides in the same boat with Jesus and Laozi - my conclusion he is here recognized authority was a valid one.

And what a boat ride that would be. One pictures Weininger seated in the middle, prattling on in a youthful and high-pitched voice about the downfalls of women, Jews, and dogs, while Jesus and Laozi split a Heineken and exchange knowing glances referring to an unspoken plot to overturn the boat and swim like hell.

Of course I'm interested in how you will support the necessity of masculine psychology since it doesn't seem to appear in the 'canon', not that I've seen anyway.

It does appear in Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, resentful scrublets that they were when it came to women. It certainly does not appear in Jesus, Zhuangzi, or Laozi, the latter being traditionally said to have had a female teacher and explicitly stressing throughout the Tao Te Ching the necessity of a feminine psychology. Horrors!

But this has been discussed here before, to no avail. Perhaps you'll have better luck.

[Ataraxia]

Not that I know Weininger from a bar of soap-and he does sound like a bit of a riot from the excerpts I have read- but even Nietzsche had bad days at the quill.

[sue hindmarsh]

Robert wrote:

Weininger himself would have precluded you from speaking in the position of authority you have been granted here or assumed here (I am not familiar with your history), and he holds that you could never attain it.

Robert, will you please stop poking your tongue out at me from behind Weininger.

Tell me directly why YOU would “preclude” me from a “position of authority”? Is it because you believe that females are not able to think independently?

Dan Rowden has left us unclear how we could possibly evaluate such a claim as yours, and arguably at Genius Forum at least Otto Weininger is better evidence than Sue Hindmarsh, Weininger being accepted here as a Spiritual Genius.

Weininger stands amongst other thinkers of the twentieth century who independently spoke out against what they recognized as the feminization of society. People like Freud, Mencken, Solway, Farrell, Quinn, Rowden, Vilan, Green, Paglia, Solanas and de Beauvoir spoke out independently on what they could not help but observe around them. And each inhabited their work to a greater, or lesser degree. I don’t go along with all they had to say, but I can’t help but respect them for their courage to do so in the face of the billions and billions of people who mindlessly and faithfully follow and foster the Feminine.

My work in this the twenty-first century, adds another voice in strong opposition to the feminine gaining more of a hold.

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert wrote:

Weininger himself would have precluded you from speaking in the position of authority you have been granted here or assumed here (I am not familiar with your history), and he holds that you could never attain it.

Robert, will you please stop poking your tongue out at me from behind Weininger.

Tell me directly why YOU would “preclude” me from a “position of authority”? Is it because you believe that females are not able to think independently?

Dan Rowden has left us unclear how we could possibly evaluate such a claim as yours, and arguably at Genius Forum at least Otto Weininger is better evidence than Sue Hindmarsh, Weininger being accepted here as a Spiritual Genius.

Weininger stands amongst other thinkers of the twentieth century who independently spoke out against what they recognized as the feminization of society. People like Freud, Mencken, Solway, Farrell, Quinn, Rowden, Vilan, Green, Paglia, Solanas and de Beauvoir spoke out independently on what they could not help but observe around them. And each inhabited their work to a greater, or lesser degree. I don’t go along with all they had to say, but I can’t help but respect them for their courage to do so in the face of the billions and billions of people who mindlessly and faithfully follow and foster the Feminine.

My work in this the twenty-first century, adds another voice in strong opposition to the feminine gaining more of a hold.

Ms. Hindmarsh,

I am not poking my tongue at you from behind Weininger. Old dead Otto has been used successfully as a character tool, the proofs of it above in the thread. As it stands however we don't know yet how much damage Otto himself, self-loathing Jewish Antisemitic misogynistic (and by some accounts schizophrenic) inflamed pustule that he was, has suffered. My guess is many of his arguments are like those Rowden was forced to give up in order to try to save your behind, Ms. Hindmarsh. By the way, did you know Otto Weininger was Antisemitic?

I'm not much on acknowledging authority, as in 'Nagarjuna writing authoritatively', although I do draw on that thinker and a few others. I have seen absolutely no indication in your writing that you know anything of human value. How then could I agree you write authoritatively here (or anywhere)? Was there any real human value in writing that list of ever so impressive names and including QRS in it? Are Freud and Quinn compatible? Quinn and Old Simone? Do you really believe a sensible person would care what you are doing in the 21st century, noting that you rather furtively slipped yourself into the mix, down at the end. Mucking up threads by announcing this person or that person suffers 'great mental blocks' does not impress me personally although I am sure many here are quite taken with that sort of thing, with the pretense, the fantasy, that you are 'spiritually advanced', although tonight we discovered you are not so advanced as some folks might previously have believed. Since you're not enlightened, Ms. Hindmarsh, do you believe Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are? If so, why do you believe that? Is belief necessary to attain Ultimate Reality; how would you know? But perhaps you are enlightened after all. We should ask, do you accept or dispute David Quinn's assessment? Given your relationship with Mr. Quinn are you in fact free to honestly answer the question? You continue to mischaracterize my position, Ms. Hindmarsh, and it continues to annoy me.

I wrote in another thread I am not here to argue with the scrubs and we did learn tonight - or it was claimed tonight - that you are not enlightened. If you aren't enlightened are you really really advanced or something? I would certainly like to continue the discussion but it does need to be worth my while. I hope this has been enlightening for you. Ta.


[edit: clearer language.]

[sue hindmarsh]

Robert wrote:

Again, Robert, you hide behind what you fondly call “old dead” philosophers. Obviously, this is your only way to deal with things. My being a thinker is not dependent on any other person’s validation. This is a very different situation than the one you exist in, for your whole intellectual life depends on you only speaking through other’s thoughts - and then only people who you considered validated by other people.

Why write anything, if you yourself have nothing to say?

My guess is many of his (Weininger) arguments are like those Rowden was forced to give up in order to try to save your behind

What leads you to believe that I need anyone to "save my behind"?

I'm not much on acknowledging authority,

No, you just use other’s thoughts, and then prance around as if they are your own.

although I do draw on that thinker (Nagarjuna) and a few others.

You don’t just “draw on them“, you suck them dry and then regurgitate a putrid mess.

I have seen absolutely no indication in your writing that you know anything of human value.

Thank god for that! The putrid mess you spew is so base and anti-thought that if you did see something in my work that was, according to you, “of human value”, I’d immediately have to reassess all my work.

(Sue's writing) does not impress me personally

No, because I'm not an “old dead” person you can spend your life rummaging around in.

Since you're not enlightened… We should ask, do you accept or dispute David Quinn's assessment?

We, as in the royal “we”. You’re now acknowledging all your “old dead” people you use. I‘m sure they’d wish you didn‘t.

I neither need to accept or dispute David Quinn’s assessment. I know my own strengths and weaknesses, and just do the best I can.

do you believe Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are (enlightened)?

Whether or not they are, doesn’t in any way affect my work, or my life.

Do you really believe a sensible person would care what you are doing in the 21st century,

What’s it to me what other people think of me, or my work. My job is to speak and write the truth - that’s all.

Given your relationship with Mr. Quinn are you in fact free to honestly answer the question?

What “relationship” would that be?

You continue to mischaracterize my position, Ms. Hindmarsh, and it continues to annoy me.

Well drag out another “old dead” person from their coffin and make them stand in front of you to protect you from any more annoyances.

I announced elsewhere I am not here to argue with the scrubs and we did learn tonight - or it was claimed tonight - that you are not enlightened.

So you are announcing that you are enlightened. Good for you!

If you aren't enlightened are you really really advanced or something?

“Advanced” in what?

I would certainly like to continue the discussion but it does need to be worth my while.

Depends on whether or not you want to, or are able to, face truth straight on. That means standing by your own thoughts, and not depending on anyone else’s.

I hope this has been enlightening for you.

Not really. You don't say much.

[RobertGreenSky]

RGS,

...

Of course I'm interested in how you will support the necessity of masculine psychology since it doesn't seem to appear in the 'canon', not that I've seen anyway.

It does appear in Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, resentful scrublets that they were when it came to women. It certainly does not appear in Jesus, Zhuangzi, or Laozi, the latter being traditionally said to have had a female teacher and explicitly stressing throughout the Tao Te Ching the necessity of a feminine psychology. Horrors!

But this has been discussed here before, to no avail. Perhaps you'll have better luck.

Better luck? I doubt it. Neither you nor I agree with the absurd 'masculine' take on what passes here for wisdom and you and I both know that in fact the opposite is asserted in Daoism. Yet given their schema, doesn't Ms. Hindmarsh exhibit some of the worst qualities of the 'feminine' (in their view) in her writing? And what is all this spiritual pretension after all but gesture? She can't get anything right, she keeps obliviously repeating her misunderstanding as if she were playing the tape recorder game, and damnit if it isn't just like arguing with a blonde.

[RobertGreenSky]

Sue,

How the hell can you have read my post and produced yours? You wrote, 'So you are announcing that you are enlightened. Good for you!' However did you get that? Why would you mischaracterize my writing so terribly? Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? Given your ongoing failures to respond coherently, including repetitions of a claim on which both Unidian and I have repeatedly corrected you, I think it's a reasonable question.

For example, you wrote, 'What leads you to believe that I need anyone to "save my behind"?' How in hell could you fail to understand that according to Otto Weininger you cannot write authoritatively here? Matter of fact you seem to be precluded from it anywhere ever. Did you forget or did you just fail to get it? Quinn, Rowden, Unidian, and I understood the point. You discussed Weininger above but your comment was not to the point, as I observed. Isn't that a very feminine thing to have done, or anyway as it's viewed around here? Now please don't assume again - and ever so femininely in the error - that discussions of what are your views somehow magically make them my own. That's an ordinary tactic of rhetoric and your failure to understand it also leads me to question whether you have problems with comprehension.

Now this is a different kind of problem, your writing, 'No, you just use other’s thoughts, and then prance around as if they are your own.' Now where have I used another's thinking without proper attribution? Your writing once again takes an almost libelous turn. You are mischaracterizing my writing just as you have mischaracterized Unidian's writing. Again I ask whether you have trouble with comprehension and if you do not then how do you explain the mischaracterizations? Not a mischaracterization? Then where did I fail to properly attribute? There is another possibility, that you very femininely wrote a cheap insult and just like 'one of them' didn't put sufficient thought into it.

Similarly, you wrote, 'We, as in the royal “we”. You’re now acknowledging all your “old dead” people you use. I‘m sure they’d wish you didn‘t.' What a cheap insult. The parsimony in your thinking is remarkable; are you saving it up for later? If we keep at this we're going to prove that old dead Otto had you pegged right, in your view, again, and not in mine, do try to keep that clear. Genius Forum is dedicated to 'Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection'. Since I was not using the royal we but the editorial we, you have failed in logic (you were presumptuous) and wisdom (ditto) and certainly in perfection since it was hardly a perfect insult or even a very good one, nor are your others, and they do constitute the bulk of your post.

'I neither need to accept or dispute David Quinn’s assessment. I know my own strengths and weaknesses, and just do the best I can.' Was that a failure of Courage? Was it also a failure of Courage when you failed to answer (and quote) questions on whether you believe QRS are enlightened and whether belief is necessary to attain Ultimate Reality? Your best is lacking. Despite the humourous tone of my post there were substantive questions and comments and you have failed to answer any of them.

'You don't say much.' In my defense, the subject matter was limiting.

[sue hindmarsh]

Robert,

You say the subject matter was “limiting” - yet the question being put forth: is a person’s physiology the deciding factor of their psychology, effects not only your’s and my understanding of our own selves, but the answer to this question has a major effect as to how the two genders see themselves and interact. It is one of the most important questions we can ask as members of this species. All you have done so far is skip around the issue by sprouting your Weininger interpretation, whilst patting yourself on the back imagining YOU have come to a conclusion. If you agree with Weininger, you will have to give the arguments to back his ideas. You cannot just use other’s works and think you are done. Unidian, the writer of the post which started this discussion, has equally skipped around the question without giving a direct answer. Both you, and Unidian need to establish your positions on this matter clearly.

Above, you also try to use what you imagine to be my understanding of the Feminine as some frail argument against my work. This you are most welcome to try and do, but first you may wish to work at understanding what the Feminine is. Your present understanding is invisible, therefore your imagined missives have logically no real target.

Your upset over my replying about the enlightenment of others as "not being of any great significance to the continuance of my life and work", is understandable. For you, and most people, status gleaned through others is the only way you exist. My independent nature is not surprisingly completely alien to your experience of life.

Your indignation over your enlightenment is a little strange though, for it was you who set up the two poles: at one end, ‘the scrubs’ and at the other end, ‘the enlightened’; placing me in the scrubs set (because of my “non-enlightenment”), and thereby leaving you in the enlightened set - for according to you, you’re “not here to argue with the scrubs”. But if you say you’re not enlightened, you must also be a scrub - though a bit of a pompous one.

-

Anyway - you need to make clear your position on the subject of female thinking - and then the discussion can move forward. Use Weininger, or anyone else to help describe your position, but first you need to take a position.