GENIUS FORUMS

The recent closing of Worldly Matters to promote the focus of the main forum, was a much needed action. The gesturing that occurred there at WM had been steadily, over the past months, poisoning the main forum - so much so, that it became nearly impossible to distinguish any difference between them. That will hopefully change a little, now that those ‘gesturers’ have been told to either shape up, or ship out.

They’ll easily find a new home, for with their love of gossip, posturing, and the regurgitation of common old tattle, they’ll have thousands upon thousands of sites dedicated to such mind-rot to choose from.

The gesturers that decide to stay on at GF will have their work cut out for them though, for trying to break free of their set mindset is no small task. But those that do at least try can only benefit from the experience.

So, Sue, given that you haven't yet been able to philosophize your physiology out of existence, shall we ignore your "gesturing?"

Is that your argument?- My thinking has no substance because I am a female!?

Do you tell your wife that her thinking has no substance because she is a female?

Sue,

Do you tell your wife that her thinking has no substance because she is a female?

Why would he? Unidian's "wife" does not believe that women are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Sue,

Is that your argument?- My thinking has no substance because I am a female!?

No, that's not my argument. It's yours.

Are you so blinded by your ideas that you can't even see a mirror when it's held in front of you?

Unidian,

Your argument, flimsy as it is, is based on my being a female. Do you, or do you not believe that my thinking has no substance because I am a female?

If you cannot answer this, you have no case.

While gossiping about people who posted on Worldly Matters, Sue Hindmarsh wrote:love of gossip, posturing, and the regurgitation of common old tattle

If that isn't posturing, I don't know what is.

Give her a break Nat; obviously she is hoping to impress her beloved Quinn into posting here again by regurgitating his common old mind-rotting, chauvinistic thoughts. Or maybe she just enjoyed tattling when

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:shape up, or ship out.

Shahrazad wrote:

Sue: Do you tell your wife that her thinking has no substance because she is a female?

Why would he? Unidian's "wife" does not believe that women are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Unidian is the one posturing that all female’s cannot think. I speak of Woman - that covers most, but not all males and females.

The fact that Unidian’s wife is a ‘wife’ automatically shows that the probability of her thinking for herself is very, very slim

Sue,

I don't think your gender has anything whatsoever to do with the substance of your thinking one way or the other. If I reject your views, it's because of their content. Gender doesn't even enter the equation.

I mentioned your gender here only because you entitled the thread "Men commit actions; women commit gestures." Since you are a woman, it would logically follow that yours is a gesture rather than an action" under your own view.

But yes, I know you'll say that in QRSH-world, mean an women are defined by the quality of their thought, and in that sense you are a man, yadda yadda. It doesn't change the fact that outside a QRSH framework, you auto-owned yourself.

The fact that Unidian’s wife is a ‘wife’ automatically shows that the probability of her thinking for herself is very, very slim

Mmm-hmm. How's Tristan, or whatever his name is?

Let me clue you in. You keep bringing up my "wife" and I'm going to keep bringing up your kid. And given the hypocrisy of the Q and the H even having a kid to begin with, that's a trade-off you really don't want to make.

Unidian,

Now you are saying that not only do all females have no substance to their thinking, you also consider children worthy of being the subject of your gossiping. Charming.

Elizabeth,

So you're agreeing with Unidian that all females have no substance to their thinking.

Your a female, aren't you? So Unidian is also speaking about you.

Unidian wrote:Sue,

I mentioned your gender here only because you entitled the thread "Men commit actions; women commit gestures." Since you are a woman, it would logically follow that yours is a gesture rather than an action" under your own view.

But yes, I know you'll say that in QRSH-world, mean an women are defined by the quality of their thought, and in that sense you are a man, yadda yadda. It doesn't change the fact that outside a QRSH framework, you auto-owned yourself.

This suggests that you don't care what people mean in a discussion (even when you actually know it) and that you just want to make a point for the show of it. I take it you don't see any substance in the difference between actions and gestures that Sue is alluding to?

Sue,

So you're agreeing with Unidian that all females have no substance to their thinking.

Your a female, aren't you? So Unidian is also speaking about you.

Do you normally argue using these kind of Fox News tactics? I've explicitly denied the idea that I think "females have no substance to their thinking" twice. You're ignoring this and continuing to attribute the position to me. Why?

If this is how you intend to behave, engaging with you is pointless.

Unidian wrote:Sue,

So you're agreeing with Unidian that all females have no substance to their thinking.

Your a female, aren't you? So Unidian is also speaking about you.

Do you normally argue using these kind of Fox News tactics? I've explicitly denied the idea that I think "females have no substance to their thinking" twice. You're ignoring this and continuing to attribute the position to me. Why?

If this is how you intend to behave, engaging with you is pointless.

Spiritual Genius Otto Weininger observed:

The woman, on the other hand, can never become a man. In this consists the most important limitation to the assertions in the first part of this work. Whilst I know of many men who are practically completely psychically female, not merely half so, and have seen a considerable number of women with masculine traits, I have never yet seen a single woman who was not fundamentally female, even when this femaleness has been concealed by various accessories from the person herself, not to speak of others. One must be (chap. i. part I.) either man or woman, however many peculiarities of both sexes one may have, and this ”being,” the problem of this work from the start, is determined by one's relation to ethics and logic; but whilst there are people who are anatomically men and psychically women, there is no such thing as a person who is physically female and psychically male, notwithstanding the extreme maleness of their outward appearance and the unwomanliness of their expression.

- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, p. 114 of the handy Weininger On The Web .pdf, emphasis mine.

Wouldn't Weininger's view be that Ms. Hindmarsh cannot speak from the authority she is (or would be in his view) pretending?

So, Sue, given that you haven't yet been able to philosophize your physiology out of existence, shall we ignore your "gesturing?"

I read that exactly as Sue did: that because Sue is physiologically female, she must think like a female and therefore only be gesturing (that part is hers). The implication therefore is that women can only ever think like women (regardless of what that means in specific terms).

Because Sue isn't taking in simplistic physiological terms, your replies don't really add anything, Nat.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Elizabeth,

So you're agreeing with Unidian that all females have no substance to their thinking.

Your a female, aren't you? So Unidian is also speaking about you.

No, I'm agreeing with Nat that you don't have any substance to your thinking - whatever you are.

RobertGreenSky wrote:Wouldn't Weininger's view be that Ms. Hindmarsh cannot speak from the authority she is (or would be in his view) pretending?

Yes, that would no doubt be his view. So what? If you think there's someone here who thinks Otto was perfectly correct in all matters or points within matters, I'd like to know who that is.

Dan Rowden wrote:

RobertGreenSky wrote:Wouldn't Weininger's view be that Ms. Hindmarsh cannot speak from the authority she is (or would be in his view) pretending?

Yes, that would no doubt be his view. So what? If you think there's someone here who thinks Otto was perfectly correct in all matters or points within matters, I'd like to know who that is.

About what was dear old Otto correct then? If his view of women is not correct, which parts of it do you accept and reject? The man after all has been declared a 'spiritual genius' so it would be good to know where the spiritual genius is correct and where the spiritual genius is mistaken.

Unidian wrote:

I don't think your gender has anything whatsoever to do with the substance of your thinking one way or the other. If I reject your views, it's because of their content. Gender doesn't even enter the equation.

Yet in your first post on this thread, you clearly point to my “physiology” as being entirely linked to my ability to think.

I mentioned your gender here only because you entitled the thread "Men commit actions; women commit gestures." Since you are a woman, it would logically follow that yours is a gesture rather than an action" under your own view.

Again, you are saying that all females are incapable of independent thought. You do so because to you ‘women’ are defined by their physiology, instead of correctly by their psychology.

To discriminate against someone because of the way they look is totally irrational.

But yes, I know you'll say that in QRSH-world, mean an women are defined by the quality of their thought, and in that sense you are a man, yadda yadda. It doesn't change the fact that outside a QRSH framework, you auto-owned yourself.

So to you, discriminating against people because of the way they look is more noble and worthy than to discriminate their quality of thought. And you call yourself a thinker!

I read that exactly as Sue did: that because Sue is physiologically female, she must think like a female and therefore only be gesturing (that part is hers). The implication therefore is that women can only ever think like women (regardless of what that means in specific terms).

But that's not the way I intended it, as I explained. I was simply pointing out the irony of Sue, A WOMAN, making a post complaining about "gesturing" when she stated that it was WOMEN who engage in that behavior.

Nonetheless, it looks like Robert has discovered a passage from "Spiritual Genius" Weininger which dashes all of Sue's dreams of becoming a "spiritual man" or a "philosophical man" to pieces. Damn, that's got to sting. I wonder how Sue thinks of Otto the Spiritual Genius in light of this? Perhaps she should discuss it with Kevin Solway and David Quinn...

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: So you're agreeing with Unidian that all females have no substance to their thinking.

Your a female, aren't you? So Unidian is also speaking about you.

No, I'm agreeing with Nat that you don't have any substance to your thinking - whatever you are.

Well, he thinks that is the case because I am a female. You, as a female must also find that intolerable. Because, you, like me, know that females and males never fit perfectly the female and male psychology. So there is never a 100% female-minded person, nor a 100% male-minded person.

Sue,

Again, you are saying that all females are incapable of independent thought. You do so because to you ‘women’ are defined by their physiology, instead of correctly by their psychology.

Outside the bizarre world of spiritual geniuses such as yourself, David, and Otto Weininger (who unfortunately pronounced you irrevocably thoughtless in the passage above), gender is universally understood as a physiological issue first and foremost. The simple reason for this is that maleness or femaleness are primarily physiological qualities. The psychological differences between the genders are dependent on (and secondary to) the physiological differences. If it were not so, one's physiological configuration would change as a result of having psychological qualities more consistent with the opposite gender, instead of the way it really works (the reverse).

Good lord almighty, only on Genius Forum can you find yourself having a "birds and bees" sort of discussion with people in their 40's who have children. It's really beyond the pale. Will we need an illustrated refresher on the anatomical differences as well?

Elizabeth: No, I'm agreeing with Nat that you don't have any substance to your thinking - whatever you are.

Sue: Well, he thinks that is the case because I am a female.

No, for the last time, that is not why I think there is no substance to your thought. I think there is no substance to it because it is god-damned fucking prima facie ridiculous, and for absolutely no other reason that that.

Do you understand me now, or am I going to have to spray paint it on my face and post a picture? Jesus.

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

RobertGreenSky wrote:Wouldn't Weininger's view be that Ms. Hindmarsh cannot speak from the authority she is (or would be in his view) pretending?

Yes, that would no doubt be his view. So what? If you think there's someone here who thinks Otto was perfectly correct in all matters or points within matters, I'd like to know who that is.

About what was dear old Otto correct then? If his view of women is not correct, which parts of it do you accept and reject? The man after all has been declared a 'spiritual genius' so it would be good to know where the spiritual genius is correct and where the spiritual genius is mistaken.

In terms of the quote you posted he is wrong, though contingently, in terms of his emphasis. Part of his weakness was in expressing too emphatically, ideas that were based in empirical contingencies. The level of difficulty that exists in terms of a woman becoming psychologically masculine is yet undetermined, because it is yet unknown to what degree the feminine and masculine are biologically or socially determined. The jury on that particular nature-nurture debate is still out, for me at least.

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Weininger wrote:

The woman, on the other hand, can never become a man. In this consists the most important limitation to the assertions in the first part of this work. Whilst I know of many men who are practically completely psychically female, not merely half so, and have seen a considerable number of women with masculine traits, I have never yet seen a single woman who was not fundamentally female, even when this femaleness has been concealed by various accessories from the person herself, not to speak of others. One must be (chap. i. part I.) either man or woman, however many peculiarities of both sexes one may have, and this ”being,” the problem of this work from the start, is determined by one's relation to ethics and logic; but whilst there are people who are anatomically men and psychically women, there is no such thing as a person who is physically female and psychically male, notwithstanding the extreme maleness of their outward appearance and the unwomanliness of their expression.

Wouldn't Weininger's view be that Ms. Hindmarsh cannot speak from the authority she is (or would be in his view) pretending?

Weininger acknowledges that psychology is the underlying influence for a person to be a woman or a man. And I agree with him that a person with the psychology of a 100% woman will find it impossible to become a man.

Like him, I too have never met a “woman who was not fundamentally female”: that is, to a high degree feminine-minded. Though, I've come across a few females that exhibited some masculine potential.