FOOTHOLDS

[Shahrazad]

David,

I wouldn't call this a rational judgment as such (most of your points are disputable), more an echoing of standard thinking in a tired era.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Only you are capable of rational judgments, and anything I say must by default be standard thinking.

-

[Jamesh]

I also should clarify that Dan has never been abusive with me. I would not lie about that.

Interesting.

Women who want something from "their man", are quite forgiving.

[Tomas]

Interesting to watch the decent of this thread into petty gossip.

Not really.

It's a case of too many chiefs and not enough injuns' (squaws).

PS - As I said originally, this is an insane thread, and started by a woman trying to get even. Nothing more, nothing less.

Get even with whom? It's a perfectly legitimate thread, in my opinion, and an interesting one too.

-

Getting even with the enlightened ones, here.

Nobody in particular, that is.

Tend to agree with Dan, tho. It has a tipping point where this thread can go into a tailspin and become rather ugly.

This getting drunk turn has a veneer of that you all had out in "the dive" (for loser's) beer pubs.

Seems to validate that there is a double standard of wink-wink whereas it is alright for certain enlightened folk to get tipsy and then show up here (somewhat inebriated) and talk nonsense.

Is this true? - Dan is allowed to post drunk? Double standard, huh?

Hence, Dan's legitimate comment about this thread descending to petty gossip... (there is a bit of gossip you let slip about Dan morphing into something of "a what only" you have observed).

PS - It is an interesting thread :-)

.



.

[Iolaus]

Jim,

Your antics are quite funny but I think you should go back to pot.

Hmmm. apparently there's some whole kind of nightlife here that I didn't know about.

Yeah, like, so Shah, have you already met? And I was worried about the price of tickets...

It is more a case of Skype getting a good work out.

Wow, getting on Skype drunk. I really am going to have to get out more. I mean, stay in and drink and get on Skype more.

What decent?

Descent.

[Blair]

I also should clarify that Dan has never been abusive with me. I would not lie about that.

-

He hasn't been openly abusive, but he has effectively dismissed you as nothing, in any way, shape or form, or as you would put it, you are nothing no matter how you are diced or sliced etc.

[Shahrazad]

Jamesh,

Women who want something from "their man", are quite forgiving.

For the record, Dan is not my man. And I don't think he wants to be owned.

What part of "we are just friends" don't you understand?

David may have been missing the context of whatever interaction he experienced. It was probably an inside joke, and he thought it was abuse.

-

[Shahrazad]

Iolaus,

Yeah, like, so Shah, have you already met?

Only in my dreams.

And I was worried about the price of tickets...

The price of tickets is hardly the issue. I do quite a bit of traveling, and will soon be doing more.

-

[Jamesh]

Women who want something from "their man", are quite forgiving.

For the record, Dan is not my man. And I don't think he wants to be owned.

I know that, it was just a stir, as well as being a truthful comment in a general sense.

What part of "we are just friends" don't you understand?

Dan's side of the equation, and Sue's for that matter (she mentioned "coffee and movies with female friends" -that's all a bit normal aint it!, for someone who is as adamently anti-feminine as she is). As Thomas is pointing out, and as I have wondering at various times over the years - there appears to be some sort of disconnect between what these folk say and what they actually do (though, of course I am similarly hypocritical). Perhaps the enlightement game is as boring as I feel it to be.

I would not have thought Dan thinks of you as a friend (an assumption), but as "entertainment", or some form of student. Both are ego gratifying activities - but then, what isn't!

[David Quinn]

David,

I wouldn't call this a rational judgment as such (most of your points are disputable), more an echoing of standard thinking in a tired era.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Only you are capable of rational judgments, and anything I say must by default be standard thinking.
-

I didn't say that. I said that the reasoning you offered was standard. In my experience, it is very widespread.

-

[David Quinn]

Dan's side of the equation, and Sue's for that matter (she mentioned "coffee and movies with female friends" -that's all a bit normal aint it!, for someone who is as adamently anti-feminine as she is). As Thomas is pointing out, and as I have wondering at various times over the years - there appears to be some sort of disconnect between what these folk say and what they actually do (though, of course I am similarly hypocritical). Perhaps the enlightement game is as boring as I feel it to be.

It's certainly not boring, but it is very difficult to sustain indefinitely. The disconnect is one of imperfections ands weaknesses. Props are still needed.

In a monastery the props are the rituals and interactions with devotees, and so on. In wider society, it is whatever you need for refreshment and recharging the batteries.

-

[David Quinn]

Get even with whom? It's a perfectly legitimate thread, in my opinion, and an interesting one too.

Getting even with the enlightened ones, here.

Perhaps she wants to help Dan, as well as make a wider point about male/female relations.

Tend to agree with Dan, tho. It has a tipping point where this thread can go into a tailspin and become rather ugly.

This getting drunk turn has a veneer of that you all had out in "the dive" (for loser's) beer pubs.

Seems to validate that there is a double standard of wink-wink whereas it is alright for certain enlightened folk to get tipsy and then show up here (somewhat inebriated) and talk nonsense.

Is this true? - Dan is allowed to post drunk? Double standard, huh?

I would prefer it if nobody posted drunk, but it is probable that a number of people do. Nothing much we can do about that unless they start behaving erratically.

Hence, Dan's legitimate comment about this thread descending to petty gossip... (there is a bit of gossip you let slip about Dan morphing into something of "a what only" you have observed).

I'm just acknowledging what a number of people here already know and have experienced. There is no point in trying to keep it under wraps. It is already out there. Dan has to deal with it as best he can.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Prince wrote:

Sue: it is a very primordial sense that men have, not being able to take anything women do seriously. Men have to take each other seriously for their own survival. So for men to take a woman seriously, they would be acknowledging that she were more man than woman - and that would be a very rare thing.

Not really, Sue.

In the Western economic system, a man (who is likely a woman to some degree) will take another man or woman equally seriously. There is a presumed "fairness" equation in the interactions, you scratch my back, I scratch yours, a childish recipricol type of relationship.

But do men and women truly take each other seriously? Is it actually possible? Isn’t it more the case that men have to pretend to do so to keep the peace and to be accepted by women, whilst women are able to openly show that they don’t take men seriously at all?

The sex of the person is secondary to the promise they represent, of a crude agreed-upon moral code.

No, I think the sex of a person is paramount to how seriously they are taken. For example: Name a male supermodel? No – can’t think of one. But I bet you can name at least one female supermodel. (Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Elle Macpherson, Kate Moss) There are no male supermodels for the same reason hardly anyone takes women’s sport seriously. Men are warriors, not show-ponies. Men’s lives depend upon their actions. Walking up and down a catwalk wearing designer clothes is completely one-dimensional and soulless – but it fits 100% with woman’s psychology. That’s why beautiful women are celebrated in every culture and every era. They are the embodiment of what every woman dreams to be, and what every man dreams to have. And beauty is also what helps make woman’s sport worth watching – and why female-sumo wrestling remains a fringe sport.

The same dynamic can be seen in this thread, Shah see's qualities in Dan which would indicate that type of "fair" conduct in human interaction. Doe's she really know Dan?

Good question. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter if she knows much about Dan. All that matters to her is that she feels she knows enough about him for her to believe he is her friend. I know this to be true from my own interactions with people. As long as I never question them about their values, or the values of society, they are perfectly happy to buy me lunch. But that's the nature of friendship - ignoring whole swathes about the other person so you can have something to do with them.

[sue hindmarsh]

Ryan wrote:

I think the major difference between Dan and myself is Dan’s criticism’s of women are usually not directed as personally, whereas on occasion I have directed my criticisms at particular females for particular behaviors that I was displeased with at the time. My passion emerges on occasion, and the result is that Dan is probably seen as more of a 'nice guy' in the female’s eyes, whereas my character is probably interpreted as ‘that misogynist jerk who always pisses them off” Dan and I may have the exact same philosophy, but as long as he speaks universally, and not against particular females in a personal manner, then his popularity among the females is probably going to be higher.

Your idea that Dan’s popularity (is he popular?) comes from “speaking universally” and “not against particular females”, has absolutely no basis. He has consistently laid bare the truth about the feminine and its relation to wisdom, as exampled below:

Dan:

Feminine: that part of the human mind characterised by an immediate, spontaneous, visceral, emotional and unconscious engagement with the world. i.e. the animal.

Enlightenment: what is left over when false thoughts about the nature of reality cease arising; liberation from delusion.

And he does, on one or a thousand occasions, point out just how feminine a person is. As this recent example shows:

Dan to Mikiel:

You are the most unconscious hypocrite I've ever encountered in all the years of Genius Forum.

And as far as being considered a “misogynist jerk” – join the queue! I’m regularly called that by both men and women – which is insane, when it is obvious to anyone that understands the feminine that I'm doing all I can to encourage people to treat the feminine humanely.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, David. To see, to really see, what is happening here, to understand the various players here, to have insight into psychology, into the things that motivate people but what they can never admit to others and possibly even to themselves

Coming from someone who types dots whenever his motivation becomes a topic :)

And believe me, there is no need to distort anything, they come predistorted. That is what erroneous ideas do, they are not neutral.

Uhmm, ideas are never neutral, Mr. Super-Objectivity.

Quinn:
"It is the inevitable consequence of an intelligent man who distrusts his own mind so much that he no longer believes that anyone is capable of thinking for themselves.

Father Jacob: "I have just seen too many intellectual trips, too many spiritual trips and religious trips. I have seen an almost infinite variety of weird trips people place in front of their eyes as they look at the world, interpret it, and recommend ethics. "

Yes, that's what Quinn just told you: you've seen so much that the disappointment has made you expect everywhere the same things. It's like Beingof1 seeing everywhere his miracles after experiencing so many starting from child-hood.

Quinn: Everyone is reduced to being a puppet in an imagined play."

Father Jacob: All these layers and layers and layers.

Yes, you're confirming Quinn again, layers of play and imagination. Everything can always be reduced to that. Get over it.

Some of you seem to share---with genuine feeling---a sort of group neurosis. I take a risk in saying such a thing, but it is what I see.

I believe character to be indistinguishable from neurosis. In psychiatry the distinction is not always made. Perhaps every group always has its own character too and depending on ones values: indeed neurosis.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What about funny women?

I guess not.

Interesting quote in there from Meera Syal, a female comedian and writer:

It depends on the bloke and if he wants an equal and the sexiness of banter, which is essentially a form of foreplay. I might have toned down my humour with men I fancied when I was younger, but not now

Women seem to interpret humor in the framework of sexual attractiveness and mate selection, no matter if they're producing it or playing audience. For men humor is not just a sign of wit but seems very much related to dominance relations often within a group or between groups or individuals. It seems like a left-over from the once more important ability to hurt someone's pride or offend a foe in such a way to throw him off-guard or tempt him into unwise action. Words used to be way more powerful that way. Humor is also a blatant demonstration of smarts, but it's for a man connected to his status, being regarded as smart and funny on the ladder of respect which defines how he might be treated, or benefited in a group. That this makes him attractive in the mating game is not a prime concern to the average bloke.

It's also interesting regarding the above to see people insecure of their status crack the most jokes, often rather weak and easy ones. Anything to get a bit more respect! Who knows?

[Alex Jacob]

"My wit is more polished than your mustache. The truth which I speak strikes more sparks from men's hearts than your spurs do from the cobblestones."

---Cyrano de Bergerac

[Dave Toast]

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

-- Oscar Wilde

[David Quinn]

David writes:

"Your mind is so locked into soap-opera mode that I doubt your capacity to look at anything without distortion, without projecting all sorts of plots and conspiracies."

No, David. To see, to really see, what is happening here, to understand the various players here, to have insight into psychology, into the things that motivate people but what they can never admit to others and possibly even to themselves: that is the perspective that begins to make sense of this place, as it does so much of life. Obviously, in a 'blind' environment, one is bound to get some of it wrong. But certainly not all.

The trouble is, when one uses sociological methods to gain this understanding, as you do, one misses the essence of what constitutes an individual thinker. All one sees are the superficial aspects of the person, the aspects that can be most easily slotted into sociological categories. I've seen your psychological-cum-sociological analyzing at work and it isn't all that impressive.

The main problem is that you don't really pay attention to what is happening right before you because of a fixation on the past and the categories that exist there, using this material to weave stories like a spider spinning a web. It is as though you are constantly three or four layers removed from direct experience.

If ever you are interested in another level, another depth of discourse, just let me know. Respond to me in genuine tones and I guarantee you the same.

Well, you would need to first tell me what you consider to be a "genuine tone". I've already gathered that speaking simply and clearly about what is true doesn't qualify.

-

[David Quinn]

It occurs to me that both David and Kevin have been treated to trips to America.

When did David go to America? What for?

First I've heard of it. However, I did go to China recently, courtesy of my father.

-

[brokenhead]

Your idea that Dan’s popularity (is he popular?) comes from “speaking universally” and “not against particular females”, has absolutely no basis.

I think Ryan is spot on with this observation. I also think it is meant as a positive thing - Dan refrains from character assasination. What's wrong with that? Except about Oprah Winfrey, and the big fat whale deserves it.

[brokenhead]

Good question. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter if she knows much about Dan. All that matters to her is that she feels she knows enough about him for her to believe he is her friend. I know this to be true from my own interactions with people. As long as I never question them about their values, or the values of society, they are perfectly happy to buy me lunch. But that's the nature of friendship - ignoring whole swathes about the other person so you can have something to do with them.

And hoping they do the same for you, no?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

As long as I never question them about their values, or the values of society, they are perfectly happy to buy me lunch. But that's the nature of friendship

Anything for a free lunch. How sagely.

There are no male supermodels

That just shows that you're so much more interested in female supermodels that you don't even think about guys in that way. At BA, sher always had a male supermodel pic in her signature line. I guess that's one difference between you and sher - she's more interested in male supermodels and you're more interested in female ones.

See anything you like?

[Blair]

Good question. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter if she knows much about Dan. All that matters to her is that she feels she knows enough about him for her to believe he is her friend. I know this to be true from my own interactions with people. As long as I never question them about their values, or the values of society, they are perfectly happy to buy me lunch. But that's the nature of friendship - ignoring whole swathes about the other person so you can have something to do with them.

And hoping they do the same for you, no?

And hoping they do the same for you, no?

What do you do, other than having a stupid, but ironic username, to do your bit?

[brokenhead]

Good question. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter if she knows much about Dan. All that matters to her is that she feels she knows enough about him for her to believe he is her friend. I know this to be true from my own interactions with people. As long as I never question them about their values, or the values of society, they are perfectly happy to buy me lunch. But that's the nature of friendship - ignoring whole swathes about the other person so you can have something to do with them.

And hoping they do the same for you, no?

And hoping they do the same for you, no?

What do you do, other than having a stupid, but ironic username, to do your bit?

About what, asshole? In particular?

[brokenhead]

Hey prince, you low-life motherfucker. I just looked over your posts. You have not contributed a single positive thing to GF, douchebag. Never mind my "ironic" alias, what about your own, you pansy?