The Problem With Women Today

[brokenhead]

But doesn't the very pleasure of seduction involve the act of being accepted by a woman? You've spoken about it in the past - that is, about the buzz a man gets when a woman affirms him as being a top-notch male. The question is, how can such a buzz occur if he truly believes that women are vaporous liars?

Both men and women are liars equally when it comes to sex, aren't they? Not in every situation, but in general, since general discussions are what we seem to do at GF.

Why not try having sexual relations without lying, and have them with a person who is also not lying? Or else, assume everything is a lie, and that you both just are answering Nature's call. Why is this an issue?

Women have sex for their own reasons. It seldom has anything to do with their partner being a top-notch male, or a top-notch anything else, for that matter. Women will use vibrators---they don't have to be top-notch vibrators.

In order to trigger such a buzz, he would have to create the lie that women are truthful beings capable of genuine insight. It thus becomes impossible for him to be truthful and a seducer at the same time

Women are truthful beings every bit as much as men are, which is to say, not all that much. Finding truth and finding sex - who ever said these two pursuits were the same thing? That is the delusion right there.

[brokenhead]

In order to trigger such a buzz, he would have to create the lie that women are truthful beings capable of genuine insight. It thus becomes impossible for him to be truthful and a seducer at the same time.

But some women are truthful beings. In addition, I have met many who are capable of genuine insight. To say they never are is itself less than truthful, and stems from an insecure identity, or at the very least, a severely limited range of experiences; apparently it is quite possible to be both untruthful and not a seducer at the same time.

[David Quinn]

In order to trigger such a buzz, he would have to create the lie that women are truthful beings capable of genuine insight. It thus becomes impossible for him to be truthful and a seducer at the same time.

But some women are truthful beings. In addition, I have met many who are capable of genuine insight. To say they never are is itself less than truthful, and stems from an insecure identity, or at the very least, a severely limited range of experiences; apparently it is quite possible to be both untruthful and not a seducer at the same time.

Whether women can actually be truthful and insightful is not the point. The current discussion is focusing on Skip's perception of women - namely, that they are unfailingly vaporous liars - and whether this perception is compatible or incompatible with the ability to derive pleasure from seduction.

You can go back to sleep now.

-

[Leyla Shen]

Nick:

LS: Well, to be honest, I don’t think that I’d describe what happens before I take a shit as pain and suffering. You don’t have hemorrhoids – or a really bad diet with insufficient fibre – do you? :)

Frankly, the only time I do experience pain and suffering before a crap is if I have food poisoning. Sometimes it's annoying for me because I have to tear myself away from other things - but apart from that, [shrug].

NT: No, I generally don't experience pain and suffering before taking a shit,

OK.

And just so we’re clear and on the same page distinguishing between the two ideas of “pleasure” here:

…but it does get uncomfortable having a rectum full of shit, and the relief from that can be experienced as pleasure, i.e. suffering/escape from suffering.

But that’s only when it’s necessary to hold it in, right? Otherwise, we’re talking about some degree of constipation, I reckon.

LS:You’re aware that there are quite stimulating nerves, as well as the prostate gland (extremely sensitive to stimulation), in the anal canal, yeah – if you can get over thinking yourself homosexual for the pleasure of it . . . :)

NT: I am, but I haven't really read into it too much. Although I have noticed that when I concentrate on the actual feeling of an orgasm, I've found that it is a similar sensation to taking a shit, only much more intense.

Well, I think that makes sense... ? Semen mostly comes from the prostate just before ejaculation, and the prostate can be reached about an inch into the anus (from the outside).

Kind of like taking a giant shit out of your dick.

[laughs] Wow. Really? That’s got to be one of the best arguments against intelligent design I’ve ever seen. :)

Aside from that, does getting pleasure from anal stimulation automatically make one homosexual?

Nope.

I thought for one to have homo tendencies one needed to actually be attracted to those of the same sex.

Right.

Is it gay if a guy has his girlfriend fuck him with a dildo or strap-on?

Well, no, it isn’t. But surely it’s just a different, sordid fantasy away - and I think that’s the essential difference between "sex" and taking a shit. :)

[Nick]

That’s got to be one of the best arguments against intelligent design I’ve ever seen. :)

Well I know if I were going to design a human I wouldn't have combined the reproductive facilities with the same facilities that discharge bodily excrement. It's like trying to combine an amusement park with a sewage treatment plant. There's no way that can be up to code.

Is it gay if a guy has his girlfriend fuck him with a dildo or strap-on?

Well, no, it isn’t. But surely it’s just a different, sordid fantasy away - and I think that’s the essential difference between "sex" and taking a shit. :)

Maybe this can clear things up. (take it to the 2:10 mark if you don't want to listen to the whole thing)

[baulz owt]

First off, you don't know Marshall
at all, so don't grow partial
that's ammo for his arsenal

[sue hindmarsh]

Sue: What makes you think that "conquering his delusions" is on Skip's mind?

I recall Skip saying that he hated the way women affected his mind, probably because he likes to be in control of himself, and knew it was irrational for him to feel this way.

The way he tells it is he didn’t like the idea of being “owned” by women. He feels they are only out to get what they want (love and marriage), so he reckons he’ll get the better of them by having sex with them and give them nothing. A highly philosophical, conscious approach he tells himself; or at least that is what his “Secret Society” buddies tell him. But all that boasting to each other and to other males about their expertise, conquests and superiority over “owned” males hasn't anything to do with understanding the illusionary nature of things. Skip and his buddies aren’t interested in understanding anything about Life; they’re wholly empowered by tussling with each other, and with other men, for what they value most: the ‘Top Dog’ status. What the true nature of woman is, isn't a question of any importance to them. All they know is that women are useful. Other men want them. So seducers use their claimed prowess with women as a weapon against other men. And that’s it in a nut-shell. That appears to be the sum of Skip’s present existence, and the reason for his posting to this forum. And it’s plain old ordinary worldly stuff. These guys are seducers; other men are fire-fighters, businessmen, cheats, rock stars, gurus, house-painters, politicians, manipulators, lovers, academic philosophers, haters, garbage collectors, etc. And the one thing that binds them all is Woman.

Nick: to actually make a cognitive decision to set out and become a seducer of a delusion (women in this case), one most certainly still firmly believes in that delusion. It would be like trying to seduce the products of one's imagination, nobody would be motivated enough to make a lifestyle out of that unless they had some severe mental issues.

Yeah, utter madness, but that’s the story for most men and women; they’re completely lost in the “product”.

[Alex Jacob]

David writes:

"It is what drives your verocious reading habit, for example. It is also what is behind your touchiness at being judged or labeled in any way. To be judged or labelled means to feel limited, and to feel limited implies that you are being excluded from something."

I don't have any problem with labels. Labels are good and desirable. It is calling a thing what it is. What I react to, and have since the beginning, is a closed-system that you seem to operate within. Your mental system is too limited, and for this reason I don't think you really grasp spiritual life. It is a loop: your mental system is too restrictive, and for this reason don't seem to have a grasp of the very wide nature of spritual life. But I never said that you do not understand spiritual life in some ways and I never said that yours is 'invalid'. So, just for the sake of conversation and not because I am trying to focus on Skip, I have no problem describing what he is living and learning as part of spiritual life, his spiritual life. But you, you see, find it necessary (because of your limited mental system) to come out and brand it as 'perversion' and God knows what else. It is not that I would attempt to defend something (certain activities, or a life-style) that I did not believe in, and so take up Skip's area of interest spitefully, it is that I have discovered that each life has certain areas that can be isolted in it that are the areas that person is destined to work in. That is where there 'spiritual life' is.

Also, you refer to Ranakrishna quite often. But you don't seem to really understand the Hindu spiritual conception. You have a limited perception of it, and maybe that is why you seem only to be able to conceive of the absolutes and the extremes in the lives of some of the mystics. My point is not, as you think, to denigrate that per se, but is to point out that in the Hindu conception the most relevant thing is to practice spiritual life exactly where you are located, within your 'station', in the way that you can conceive, and ALWAYS in such a way that your activities are beneficial to society and to 'the cosmic order' of things (Rta). Ramakrishna, I venture to say, would have understood this, and he would have 'blessed' and emphasized someone's spiritual activity, but never condemned it, never put a burden of shame on it, as you do. You, as a pompous and badly educated idiot, who pretends at a wide understanding, end up doing this all the time. I first noted it with the Catholic Father what's-his-name that you had on your (·laughs·) 'reasoning show'.

You see yourselves as these amazing 'truth seekers' and so feel that you can make all sorts of judgments of what other people are doing, the area they are working in, and it is this I take issue with. The main reason is just because you are nowhere near as qualified as you think and so you ASK to be taken down a few notches. If you had some humility, of course, all sorts of people could converse with you, you would BUILD UPON understanding and, I think, have more success. I always have said that I am really here to help and that is because I do appreciate many aspects of what you offer here and what you do. But when you little fucks get arrogant and testy, when you pathetic milk-toast losers think you can judge everyone else on this plane of existence, that is when you rile ole Alex Jacob. And don't you forget it, jerk-weed.

"A quick perusal of your post reveals the following labels dispensed in my direction: philistine, dogmatic, childish, dull, toad, uncomprehending, cheap, non-beautiful, unloving, a church-founder, moralizer, vulgar, a club scout captain, ridiculous..." If you believe that a person's connection with God is unqiue and personal, then why do you constantly feel a need to crush my own personal uniqueness? Are you saying that everyone's connection with God is unique and pesonal, except for those people you don't like?"

Again, it is not the use of labels, not at all, it is that your labels don't nail me, whereas mine (of you) do. I 'crush' your stupidity, little grasshopper, and demand that you grow.

I think the Hindu system, if it is correctly grasped and if every effort is made to avoid the many pitfalls in it, provides a very good model for spiritual life. I don't think you really understand it so your constant reference to an exponent of it, is absurd, and this is what I take issue with.

What 'drives' my reading habit is to gain as wide a perspective as I can of life and all the different ways that intelligence (God) moves in life. Literature is, for this reason, an indispensable aid to understanding.

The women and gold reference was interesting to me. For a monk in India of course there can be no association with either. And in that system there is such a thing as the renunciant's life-style. But for that lifestyle there is also, of perhaps there was, because it is changing, a support system. But it all functioned within a whole: a productive society that engaged in certain forms of worship and piety that supported a class of monks and their activities. We do not live in an era or a structure that is at all similar, and that is why I would suggest that much of what you recommend in your boyish extremism is impracticable and sometimes quite a little bit irrelevant. If we are going to have an honest and upfront conversation about spiritual life it has to be located in a real and a modern context: real for us, in our situations, here and now.

One must deal both with 'women' and with 'gold', and in that sense with all aspects of modern life. And somehow, within that context, discover God (redefine God and all the terms of spiritual life), define meaning, consider new perspectives, etc. You-all paint yourselves as better than sliced bread in questions intellectual, but when you really look at it, y'all are experts at passing gas, at mouthing off, at making yourselves look important and relevant, on the cutting-edge. That right there is a major and valid reason to rail against you shit-kickers and to try to HELP you to make some progress. I'm willing to do that even if I have to drag you by the scruff of your necks.

To help someone stuck in a pit you have to be willing to get a little dirty.

[brokenhead]

Well, no, it isn’t. But surely it’s just a different, sordid fantasy away - and I think that’s the essential difference between "sex" and taking a shit. :)

_________________
The Mad Turk

Say, you might not be all that "mad" after all.

[brokenhead]

Whether women can actually be truthful and insightful is not the point. The current discussion is focusing on Skip's perception of women - namely, that they are unfailingly vaporous liars - and whether this perception is compatible or incompatible with the ability to derive pleasure from seduction.

You can go back to sleep now.

It is the point because I made it the point.

I never sleep.

[David Quinn]

I don't have any problem with labels. Labels are good and desirable. It is calling a thing what it is. What I react to, and have since the beginning, is a closed-system that you seem to operate within. Your mental system is too limited, and for this reason I don't think you really grasp spiritual life. It is a loop: your mental system is too restrictive, and for this reason don't seem to have a grasp of the very wide nature of spritual life.

Okay, so we have a situation where you think I am too narrow and restrictive, and I think you are too broad and indiscriminate.

I am "narrow" and "restrictive" because I tend to focus almost exclusively on the rare attainment of enlightenment. By contrast, you barely give such an attainment a second thought, which means that your mind is in the habit of roaming around without discrimination or understanding.

When Jesus said, "Make every effort to enter through that narrow gate, for few find it", or when Buddha said, "Only one in a thousand seek enlightenment and, of those, only one in a thousand attain it", what do you think is happening there? Were they being too restrictive out of a lack of spiritual understanding?

But I never said that you do not understand spiritual life in some ways and I never said that yours is 'invalid'. So, just for the sake of conversation and not because I am trying to focus on Skip, I have no problem describing what he is living and learning as part of spiritual life, his spiritual life.

Is there any action at all that you would describe as not being spiritual?

But you, you see, find it necessary (because of your limited mental system) to come out and brand it as 'perversion' and God knows what else. It is not that I would attempt to defend something (certain activities, or a life-style) that I did not believe in, and so take up Skip's area of interest spitefully, it is that I have discovered that each life has certain areas that can be isolted in it that are the areas that person is destined to work in. That is where there 'spiritual life' is.

Well, according to my narrow viewpoint, spirituality refers specifically to the conscious connection to Truth. If a person isn't doing his utmost to forge this conscious connection, then in no way can he be described as engaging in spiritual life. Not without making a mockery of spirituality.

You make it abundantly clear that you have no interest in Truth. You even actively speak against the kind of mental extremes which are needed to realize Truth, going so far as to label them "restrictive". Even worse, you then bastardize the term "spirituality" by applying it to all sorts of areas that have nothing to do with the process of realizing Truth.

And you wonder why I have a problem with you.

Also, you refer to Ranakrishna quite often. But you don't seem to really understand the Hindu spiritual conception. You have a limited perception of it, and maybe that is why you seem only to be able to conceive of the absolutes and the extremes in the lives of some of the mystics.

Those absolutes and extremes form the very heart and soul of these men. They had the wisdom to place the realization of Brahman at the very centre of their lives. They didn't leave it languishing on the sidelines while splashing about in a broad sea of mediocrity.

Ramakrishna, I venture to say, would have understood this, and he would have 'blessed' and emphasized someone's spiritual activity, but never condemned it, never put a burden of shame on it, as you do.

Well, he did shame people, in his own way. His constant praising of God-realization translates as a shaming of those who either don't have this attainment or don't want it. And of course, he always had lots of fun mocking the worldly mentality.

No, he was very much in the shaming business, as he should be. Anything that prods people out of their lazy mentality and sparks them upwards in the direction of God-realization - whether it be through shaming, or shocking, or reasoning, or humour, or ego-stroking, or whatever - is a noble, spiritual activity.

You see yourselves as these amazing 'truth seekers' and so feel that you can make all sorts of judgments of what other people are doing, the area they are working in, and it is this I take issue with. The main reason is just because you are nowhere near as qualified as you think and so you ASK to be taken down a few notches.

Yes, that's perfectly understandable. People have been trying to do that for many years now. But they have been no more inspired in their attempts than you have.

You're not going to win me over by parading the banner of mediocrity in my face. It needs to be far more interesting and Zennish for me to start feeling vulnerable.

If you had some humility, of course, all sorts of people could converse with you, you would BUILD UPON understanding and, I think, have more success.

Oh God, I can think of better ways to waste my life.

I behave the way I do for a specific reason. I wonder if you can work out what it is.

-

[skipair]

He feels they are only out to get what they want (love and marriage), so he reckons he’ll get the better of them by having sex with them and give them nothing.

Just to clarify, I've been trying to emphasize that just sex, and sex alone, is just as high (if not higher) on the value list of women as love and marriage. But they hide this at all costs and attempt to punish the people who expose it.

But all that boasting to each other and to other males about their expertise, conquests and superiority over “owned” males hasn't anything to do with understanding the illusionary nature of things.

No, just the illusory nature of feeling love for women.

Skip and his buddies aren’t interested in understanding anything about Life; they’re wholly empowered by tussling with each other, and with other men, for what they value most: the ‘Top Dog’ status.

It's true that for the majority of my life, trying to understand every little thing about reality has been less than #1 on my priority list. But it's inaccurate to say I'm wholly powered by top dog status, and inaccurate to say I'm not interested in life.

Very interesting comment about Top Dog competition, though. The full force and creativity of my personality comes out when I see that I'm the top dog alpha of the group. In these situations, I feel no restrictions towards full expression, and it's these times that I'm by far having the most fun. But coinciding with my loss of love for women, I've been largely unable and unwilling to take up that role. It could be that I don't have as much in common with people anymore to relate and lead them like I used to. But it also could be that I just don't feel the need like I used to.

While that old habit still pops up from time to time, I'm actually very uninterested in tussling with other men for Top Dog status. I'd much prefer everyone to sit back and chill - me included. Especially in reference to women, I dispise even the hint of competition as it undermines the particular lingering dream I have and how it pads my ego: I definitely would like to be #1 for one happy, innocent, simple-minded woman that I could call my own. My heaven is when it seems I've found such a woman, who would be loyal and love me without compromise simply because I am me. My hell is being reminded that there actually is competition and how that necessarily ruins it for me.

I've accepted that the world and women work in many ways that are not compatible with this dream. And while sometimes it hurts, and I feel a need to retaliate and "get the better of them", I've managed to control that urge very well. Attempting to become a seducer seemed essentially a matter of necessity for me, not to spite women and "give them nothing", but simply to play the game they had been playing the whole time without my knowing - maybe then I could be good enough? LOL, Oh God...

I'll have to give a rethink to David's comment that I'm "pretending" I have no choice...

As well as the lying thing...

Other men want them. So seducers use their claimed prowess with women as a weapon against other men. And that’s it in a nut-shell.

Hopefully, I've clearly explained to you how this isn't the case with me.

[Shahrazad]

skipair,

Especially in reference to women, I dispise even the hint of competition as it undermines the particular lingering dream I have and how it pads my ego: I definitely would like to be #1 for one happy, innocent, simple-minded woman that I could call my own. My heaven is when it seems I've found such a woman, who would be loyal and love me without compromise simply because I am me.

May the record show that I was right when I said what you want is for a woman to fall in love with you, not in lust. My shot was a lot closer to target than Sue's.

ETA: I advise you that if you trick a woman into loving you, and you don't have any feelings for her, she will do very little for your ego. You could be wasting your time.

[Nick]

May the record show that I was right when I said what you want is for a woman to fall in love with you, not in lust. My shot was a lot closer to target than Sue's.

My god, you're disgusting.

[sue hindmarsh]

skipair,

Especially in reference to women, I dispise even the hint of competition as it undermines the particular lingering dream I have and how it pads my ego: I definitely would like to be #1 for one happy, innocent, simple-minded woman that I could call my own. My heaven is when it seems I've found such a woman, who would be loyal and love me without compromise simply because I am me.

May the record show that I was right when I said what you want is for a woman to fall in love with you, not in lust. My shot was a lot closer to target than Sue's.

ETA: I advise you that if you trick a woman into loving you, and you don't have any feelings for her, she will do very little for your ego. You could be wasting your time.

Skip dreams of his Eve: a woman made just for him. When he "games" women, he is also looking for women made for him. At bottom, he is doing what any man does who is caught in woman's sway - he's doing all that he can to find ones that will accept him.

[Shahrazad]

Nick,

My god, you're disgusting.

And you really think you aren't? Ever look at yourself in a mirror, loser?

Sue,

Skip dreams of his Eve: a woman made just for him. When he "games" women, he is also looking for women made for him. At bottom, he is doing what any man does who is caught in woman's sway - he's doing all that he can to find ones that will accept him.

True. Will he be falling in lust with this woman, though? And will the game really be over once he has her hooked?

My observation of men is that after they hunt the game, they don't want it any more. All the thrill is in the hunting, and after the chase is over, they have to go back to hunting. For another prey, of course. Someone I know has been playing that game for about 25 years, and by now is addicted to it.

[sue hindmarsh]

To be accepted lustfully or lovingly is driven by the same need to be accepted by woman. A man may find that need fulfilled by one woman, or a number of women. The main thing is that he finds acceptance. It's a deeply rooted need, as man is by nature separate from the world. Through woman, he finds his place within it.

[sue hindmarsh]

He feels they are only out to get what they want (love and marriage), so he reckons he’ll get the better of them by having sex with them and give them nothing.

Just to clarify, I've been trying to emphasize that just sex, and sex alone, is just as high (if not higher) on the value list of women as love and marriage. But they hide this at all costs and attempt to punish the people who expose it.

Skip, when you make statements, you need to back them up with some degree of reasoning. Your idea that sex is a hidden "high" value of woman’s could refer to a few different things, so you first need to clarify what you mean.

Sue: But all that boasting to each other and to other males about their expertise, conquests and superiority over “owned” males hasn't anything to do with understanding the illusionary nature of things.

No, just the illusory nature of feeling love for women.

Again, you need to define what you are talking about. Why is love for women illusory? What about love for dogs? What about love for children, parents, or your own self? Is all love illusionary – or just some?

Sue: Skip and his buddies aren’t interested in understanding anything about Life; they’re wholly empowered by tussling with each other, and with other men, for what they value most: the ‘Top Dog’ status.

It's true that for the majority of my life, trying to understand every little thing about reality has been less than #1 on my priority list. But it's inaccurate to say I'm wholly powered by top dog status, and inaccurate to say I'm not interested in life.

You write that “trying to understand every little thing about reality has been less than #1 on my priority list”. Okay. How about trying to understand just one “little thing about reality” – namely, Reality? : )

Though what I see as your lack of curiosity as to the deeper meaning of life, can't be consider as all that surprising when you note how long you've been focusing on women. Earlier on this thread, you wrote:

Skip: When I became conscious of the nature of Woman and of sexual communication, I made at first contact a radically different impression on women than I had the 20+ years previously. They treated me differently than most and looked at me with interest and lust. So I carved that seeming uniqueness into my identity. It's pretty torturous at times, but I'm stubborn and don't like to give up on things easily, thinking that the finish line might come at the next turn - in this case becoming a skilled seducer. The quest essentially gives my life meaning where I would otherwise be extracted into a bleak, loveless world. Any unfinished business I talk about is probably just an excuse not to look at something that feaks the shit out of me.

The fact that you found your “Secret Society” and adopted their thinking, shows how seriously you feel about women. Recently, a degree of success has come your way. And according to you, you are not stopping in your purpose anytime soon.

But such dedication makes appreciating the ramifications of say, Causality, not possible, because those ramifications are the natural enemy of the ego. And in “gaming”, love, and marriage, the ego is central.

Very interesting comment about Top Dog competition, though. The full force and creativity of my personality comes out when I see that I'm the top dog alpha of the group. In these situations, I feel no restrictions towards full expression, and it's these times that I'm by far having the most fun. But coinciding with my loss of love for women, I've been largely unable and unwilling to take up that role. It could be that I don't have as much in common with people anymore to relate and lead them like I used to. But it also could be that I just don't feel the need like I used to.

“Lead” people in what, and where?

While that old habit still pops up from time to time, I'm actually very uninterested in tussling with other men for Top Dog status. I'd much prefer everyone to sit back and chill - me included. Especially in reference to women,

Then what is the point of your telling the readers of this forum about your exploits?

Are you posting just for the hell of it?

I dispise even the hint of competition as it undermines the particular lingering dream I have and how it pads my ego: I definitely would like to be #1 for one happy, innocent, simple-minded woman that I could call my own. My heaven is when it seems I've found such a woman, who would be loyal and love me without compromise simply because I am me. My hell is being reminded that there actually is competition and how that necessarily ruins it for me.

So, you’re not sure what you want, but you’ll just continue being carried along, and not worry about the consequences. Can you see anything wrong with that?

Interesting that you see the greatest “hell” as being reminded that you’re not God’s Gift to women.

I've accepted that the world and women work in many ways that are not compatible with this dream. And while sometimes it hurts, and I feel a need to retaliate and "get the better of them", I've managed to control that urge very well. Attempting to become a seducer seemed essentially a matter of necessity for me, not to spite women and "give them nothing", but simply to play the game they had been playing the whole time without my knowing - maybe then I could be good enough? LOL, Oh God...

Your laughing shows that at least you instinctively see there is something not quite right in your thinking. Therefore, you’re not totally an Alex. You still are capable of questioning the soundness of your beliefs.

Such as:
What have you discovered that makes you "accept" that incompatibility with your dream?
Why does it "hurt"?
By "retaliating", what do you gain?
Why the need to "control the urge"?
What "game" didn't you know about?
How come you didn't "know" about the game?
"Good enough" for whom?
"Good enough" by what standard?

Sue: Other men want them. So seducers use their claimed prowess with women as a weapon against other men. And that’s it in a nut-shell.

Hopefully, I've clearly explained to you how this isn't the case with me.

I need more information as to how you think the whole male, female dynamic works. Presently, you paint a very vague picture of things.

[Alex Jacob]

David wrote;

"When Jesus said, "Make every effort to enter through that narrow gate, for few find it", or when Buddha said, "Only one in a thousand seek enlightenment and, of those, only one in a thousand attain it", what do you think is happening there? Were they being too restrictive out of a lack of spiritual understanding?"

Don't you think it just a wee bit absurd that, in effect, you place yourself on this platform? You are almost acting like a Sadducee with such a trick question. Next, you'll ask for a coin and ask 'Whose image is this?'

I am going to have to feed your ass to the lions!

To be truthful, I feel a connection through Ramakrishna to what I understand of his 'enlightenment': the experience of coming home, of returning. It is easier, I think, to grasp Ramakrishna than it is to grasp the Jesus of the Gospels. There is too much in the texts themselves that impedes understanding. I find that the Gospels can't really be relied on to understand Jesus because the figure of Jesus is somehow quite unreal, as are most of the personages and situations in the Gospels. It is like a kind of cheap Moral Theatre.

But, there is something. One of the reasons (just my opinion) that there has never been and can never be a realistic portrayal of Jesus; when you place anyone in that role you see that it could never be pulled off, and it always seems to turn into melodrama. But there is something that one senses in the Gospels: the presence of a very powerful personalility. Or, there had to be a very powerful personality to have set in motion all that was set in motion in history. Such a thing doesn't just happen on its own, or does it? (Y'all are way into 'causes' so you should be able to answer). It is less, I think, what is said or recorded in any Gospel, and more what people take away from the Gospels, or maybe they fill in the blanks? My way of understanding Jesus is in the 'personalism' of Jesus. The way I understand that is quite simple really: the willingness to become present with other people. To really 'show up'. To be consumed in dramatic experiences, to get drunk on God (like Ramakrishna and many mystics of the East) is something I personally feel a link with, insofar as I have felt such things, experienced such things, and also intuited it. But, don't know what to think of such experiences over-all. I am inclined to feel much more admiration for someone---anyone---who 'shows up' for another person. It is far more difficult to do that than to 'pass through the eye of a needle' or through the 'straight and narrow' gate.

That to me is to express, in some way, enlightened values or an enlightened stance, to 'show up' for someone else. Oscar Wilde was (by his own admission) a flaming pervert and he made the mistake of battling a society that was equipped to destroy him. That society set out to destroy him, and did destroy him. But in the period of time when he was 'dying', though some considered this his Christ-pose, he seemed to have become a Christian, insofar as he understood something very profound about suffering, the same sort of suffering that I suppose the Buddhists talk about, or the Vaishnavas. In his absolute darkest moment, when he had been crushed, he was paraded in front of a crowd who, of course, jeered at him, mocked his fall. But a friend of his showed up unconcerend about what others would think of him, and this friend offered Wilde a small gesture, a wave or a salute I don't remember what, that deeply touched Wilde. Wilde wrote (in de Profundis) that such a small thing as that (showing up) might have 'opened the door to Heaven' to such a man with the strength or the understanding to have made the gesture to another human being. And there are precious few human beings who have the understanding or the strength to show up for others, and so they never do. Very few seem to hear that message, I guess. It might be a 'they that have ears let them hear' sort of thing. What do you think?

You or anyone else can get up on a box and quack quack quack about all sorts of grand values, all the remote and impossible accomplishment of forest sages in now forgotten eras, of some experience of 'enlightenment' (and blah blah blah) but if it is not accompanied by certain attitudes that reveal a real and profound understanding of life---in this sense what might be called a Christian understanding since you brought up the Life of Jesus and quoted him---I more or less shut my ears to it, it goes out with all the rest of the trash: It really has little value to me anymore, and is just the chatter of adolescents. And that is of course why I use this term frequently: adolescent. It means someone on the verge of growing up, but not grown up yet. It means someone with all this energy and hautiness but without some kind of experience that opens him up to understanding, the understanding that really counts. It means some people who feel that own, explain and dominate 'wisdom' who yet never seem to say anything really very wise.

So, 'were they too restrictive out of lack of spiritual understanding?' I guess it is a good question. There are, apparently, different levels to understanding. Different 'gates' that one passes though. For an adolescent who fundamentally misses the point, how could they ever see the point they have missed? You don't get to that until you've passed that 'gate' and then, I guess, it comes as a humbling 'ah-ha'.

[Shahrazad]

Such a long blog, and he didn't even come close to answering David's question.

[skipair]

Skip: Just to clarify, I've been trying to emphasize that just sex, and sex alone, is just as high (if not higher) on the value list of women as love and marriage. But they hide this at all costs and attempt to punish the people who expose it.

Sue: Skip, when you make statements, you need to back them up with some degree of reasoning. Your idea that sex is a hidden "high" value of woman’s could refer to a few different things, so you first need to clarify what you mean.

It's pretty clear and self-explanatory.

Why is love for women illusory? What about love for dogs? What about love for children, parents, or your own self? Is all love illusionary – or just some?

Maybe aside from myself, I don't think I love anything in particular anymore. Why? I don't know...what's to love?

The fact that you found your “Secret Society” and adopted their thinking

It's an incorrect assumption to make if you think I came across some literature, or a group of people, and simply took on their perspective. But yes, some of the things they say (depending on what things and what they) regarding female behavior match my own observations.

But such dedication makes appreciating the ramifications of say, Causality, not possible, because those ramifications are the natural enemy of the ego. And in “gaming”, love, and marriage, the ego is central.

I agree with the last sentence, though I'm not sure you're in a position to be telling me about causality, nature, and reality.

“Lead” people in what, and where?

Into what I think and what I want. It wasn't anything I consciously set out to do, but what happened naturally. In many ways, becoming conscious of it put a stop to it.

Then what is the point of your telling the readers of this forum about your exploits?

I don't remember doing that.

So, you’re not sure what you want, but you’ll just continue being carried along, and not worry about the consequences. Can you see anything wrong with that?

You seem to draw many conclusions from assumptions, and I'm not sure how you've convinced yourself that they're fact.

Interesting that you see the greatest “hell” as being reminded that you’re not God’s Gift to women.

It makes sense. If it feels good being her God and receiving and giving uncompromising love, there's a long way to fall when that gets undermined.

Your laughing shows that at least you instinctively see there is something not quite right in your thinking. Therefore, you’re not totally an Alex.

Are you talking out loud to yourself again, or are you addressing me?

Also, my given name is Alex. So I'm sorry to say you're incorrect.

You still are capable of questioning the soundness of your beliefs.

Good to know.

I need more information as to how you think the whole male, female dynamic works. Presently, you paint a very vague picture of things.

Yeah, it's always a challenge to clearly articulate your views to other people.

[skipair]

What have you discovered that makes you "accept" that incompatibility with your dream?

I've discovered a woman's survival technique is always to play the field with her naturally born seduction techniques (not very loyal), and that there are very specific, mechanical things that trigger love in the mind. When I saw it was manufactured the magic disappeared.

Why does it "hurt"?

Because I realized I'll never have a partner in crime in this world. It's just me.

By "retaliating", what do you gain?

I'd gain the pleasures of revenge against a world that seems to have backstabbed me.

Why the need to "control the urge"?

Because revenge doesn't create a future I'd like to be in.

What "game" didn't you know about?

Woman's seduction techniques, secret language, alterior motives, etc.

How come you didn't "know" about the game?

No one else around me knew either.

"Good enough" for whom?

A pretty, simple-minded girl I could call my own. Or nowadays, many of them.

"Good enough" by what standard?

Some mixture of mine and hers. My dislike of compromise will probably be the thing that takes me out of the game. Unless I find a loophole.

[rebecca702]

Hey, Skip.

For you:

It is our fate as human beings to grasp after the ineffable, trying to regain a lost sense of unity, [...] yearning to recapture completely the four-to-nine month time-lapse photograph of being we developed in that eternal time in the womb. A kind of fused multi-sensory recording, made before our senses themselves were distinct, before birth, resides in each of our memories; a remembrance of unity. This undistinguished unity lasts some time past birth until the baby breaks the world into two pieces with its first conception based on replicated events. That first conception may have come after being fed at mother's breast many times. At some point the memory of previous events of warmth, milk, cuddling, sucking, swallowing becomes distinguished from all other memories, and the baby cries to be fed. At that point, if the baby gets fed and remembers it, the next time the baby is hungry and cries again, he or she enters time and a life of increasing distinctions. The global world of experience becomes divided into "feeding events" and "non-feeding events." The unity we all search for, the peace that passeth understanding and the looked-forward-to heaven and reunion with God, is a vague but all-pervasive memory of a time of bliss, yearningly remembered from the past, and longingly projected forward to the future.

So you feel betrayed, that things weren't set up for you to experience unity through finding that perfect girl, right? And now you are trying to force your hand. Sounds frustrating.

No one is ever going to fully accept you. I think the sooner you realize that, the better. Between womb and void, you're on your own. And being "God" to someone is only going to cause pain when eventually that someone decides she needs to feel more "Goddess."

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

One of the reasons (just my opinion) that there has never been and can never be a realistic portrayal of Jesus; when you place anyone in that role you see that it could never be pulled off

You might be interested in reading a book called Young Jesus. It does an excellent job of explaining the historical context of the Bible, including the socio-history. The Bible was not meant to be (to borrow a phrase from Galaxy Quest) "historical documents" but a story told with cultural expression. In order top add believability for the people of the time, the story-tellers added remnants of other stories. This distorted the facts of the matter as we define facts today, but communicated a message to the ancient people who thought more in abstraction than we today think in literal truth.

Try to remember that the Bible was not written for us, but for priests (one of the very few literate classes) of two thousand years ago.

[Alex Jacob]

Shah, David did not really ask a question of me, he made a statement about his interspretations and his values. His 'question' was not meant to be 'answered', and anyway he already has the answer, which is his point. Instead of playing that game, I described what I consider higher and more relevant than the values he professes. Did you get any of that?

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, to be sure, but somehow I think you are a bit smarter than you often act. Can you please make an effort to say how you would answer David's 'question'? Please please pretty please? ;-)
_________________________________________

Elizabeth wrote;

"This distorted the facts of the matter as we define facts today, but communicated a message to the ancient people who thought more in abstraction than we today think in literal truth."

Yes, that makes sense of course. The 'meaning' and the 'message' of the Gospels is always reconsidered and reexpressed in every generation. What is impressive in the documents is something that is behind them, something that gives them life and energy but is not ever revealed. I think this is what makes Christianity so dynamic, so capable of turning on a dime, making itself relevant in the moment. I also feel this is one of the principal characteristics of Jewish theology and ethics and that is, I suppose, why they have had and continue to have so much influence.