The Problem With Women Today

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by brokenhead »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
brokenhead wrote: If you have the answer as to how the UB was produced, I am all ears.
It was your claim that ""The UB was NOT channeled". Channeling meaning in general "speaking for nonphysical beings or spirits". The Urantia papers contain many references to higher-dimensional or spiritual non-human authors who are giving their perspective on this planet and its reality. One might discuss the nature of this intelligence but it falls clearly in the category of channeling unless someone wants to make the case the letters appeared out of nowhere - which nobody really does. Some of the people involved were just afraid of being lumped in with the competition, that's all. Like Christians sometimes not wanting to be called religious.
That's what I thought. You have nothing to impart about the UB. You don't even have an opinion. And I am not surprised in the least. Because you have not read any of it, or very much about it, you clearly lack the minimum of knowledge required to form an opinion. I rest my case.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:Trevor, what's with you?
I tell the truth because I don't need to lie.
Why should Alex not speak for himself?
He does, in far too many words, but he has also openly admitted that it's all smoke and mirrors. If Alex cared about wisdom at all, he would lay off the material that's obviously far too difficult for him. He would start at the basics, and work his way up to Nietzsche and postmodernism, and all the stuff that looks like fun, but which is really just a nonstop headache of nearly impossible riddles and problems. With an intelligent approach (easy to hard), he might be able to solve one of these riddles.
Don't you do that?
Why shouldn't I? I describe the state of things as best I can. I have more confidence in my reasoning ability than Alex's, so even when he disagrees I don't change my mind. (Yes, Alex, my stubborness makes me stupider than you. Go feel cocky about that, but don't bother replying to this.)
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Philosophaster »

Alex Jacob wrote:For your presentation and offering of yourself, you employ Jesus-Buddha-Nietzsche and The Wise of the Ages. They are yours, you own them. You possess their writings, you have correctly interpreted their writing (as against ALL OTHER READINGS), and you and your posse---in the Cat Bird's Seat---lord it over all possible levels of understanding.
It seems to me that this is a misguided characterization of David and the other founders of GF. As far as I can tell, they are more interested in using the writings of philosophers as an aid to their own understanding and spiritual path than they are in nailing down a "perfectly correct interpretation" and leaning on it as "authoritative."
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Alex Jacob »

Diebert, as usual, you are really saying little, and nothing relevant to me. You always do this, and you repeat yourself. You understand very well what I talk about, and you are hog-tied and can't comment, on-forum at least. It looks more and more like a kind of cowardice.
_______________________________________

Nevertheless, I will be winding my participation down here starting today. Out of respect for you-all. What I needed to learn from this place, I learned.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Carl wrote:
Sue: It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice.

Carl: Belief in those things may imply grasping or cowardice or it may not. It does not automatically do so by definition.

Sue: How can it not? Belief is caused by the irrational urge to pad out one’s existence. And that’s utter madness.
Why?
It’s madness to accessorize the self without first knowing what it is!
Because you have never experienced a fairy or a godhead (not sure what that is, exactly)? Are you saying that all belief is madness? What about belief in the world being round? What about belief in wisdom? Where is the line to be drawn?

What I’m talking about is using ‘things’ to build up an existence. I call this type of building, “grasping”, because it’s a desperate attempt to fortify the self from being buffeted about by the universe. Examples of which are the adoption of fairies into one’s life because they’re said to bring good luck. And that’s adults believing in fairies - not children! It should just be the kiddies exploring such a fantasy land, but no, it’s grown up people who should obviously know better. Why? Because growing up must mean more than just growing taller and wider. One’s thinking must also grow up. But for most people, growing away from fantasy land obviously isn’t happening. Good-luck-fairies are absorbed into grown-up’s lives as easily as are godheads (a god or goddess; a deity). These mythical creatures are also considered to bring their owners good fortune, as well as high status whilst in this life, and on top of that, everlasting life in these creature’s fantasy lands. Often, the owners of godheads also own a collection of fairies. They do this for safety reasons: say, when one of the godheads is becoming a bit boring, they can pull out the fairies to fill in.
Most people have one or more of these pets (what else are they?!), having inherited them from their parents. But quite a few people just happen upon them in their everyday scavenging for new entertainments. And then there are some who, feeling uncomfortably naked, grab hold of whatever creature is closest to hand, and make it there own. The creatures have no say in who becomes their owner, but that’s a natural consequence of being a fantasy.

From the above, you can perhaps understand how adopting a Flat-Earth, or a Square-Earth belief makes for more fun and entertainment than just the ordinary old Round-Earth idea. If the Flat-Earth idea returns to being fashionable once more, Round-Earth believers can enjoy being in opposition.

And as for a “belief in wisdom”, you’d have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see how the concept ‘wisdom’ has, era upon era, been squished to a thin expanse by people wanting to use it to cover their barren souls. So successfully vague has the concept become, anyone can claim to own wisdom – or not own it – and still receive 100% product satisfaction.

It boils down to this, Carl, things are useful not for what they are, but for what they can be made into. Fairies exist because we want them to. Deities are our friends because we want them to be. The world is most plausibly round, but for some, they can glean more fun from a flat, or square, or triangular one. And ‘wisdom’, no longer the bloodied cold steeled sword of truth, it’s now a baby’s smile on a warm sunny day, birds singing overhead, and kittens playing nearby.
Sue: It takes a moment of thought to see that believing things bring with them gain or loss is completely false.
Sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.
Below you state that “Ultimately all is one”. The consequence of “all is one” is that you can’t add or subtract anything to or from anything. Can you see how that logically follows?
Sue: Things are the same as you, so what can be gained or lost?
Ultimately all is one, yes. But what does that have to do with distinguishing between appearances?
“Distinguishing” them truthfully, perhaps? What do you reckon?
Is your argument (your belief) that there is no usefulness in any belief whatsoever, not even a belief in truth?
If something is true, you don’t need belief in it being true – it’s just true.

The reason for this is that the knowledge of truth brings with it neither loss nor gain. There is no status to be gained, or fun and entertainment to be gleaned. But with belief, people are able use it to bolster themselves – as I’ve already described.
Sue: And hey, angles (the point of view kind), fairies, gurus, unicorns, godheads and yes, even angels deserve to be freed from the cowards that use and abuse them! No one thing deserves to become guff.
This smacks of bombast (rhetoric without substance). We still do not know why you would consider someone who has experienced an angel to be automatically irrational, a coward, a guffer, grasping, abusive, and utterly mad.
I can “experience” angels, but I respect them for what they are, thereby not abusing them by making them what they are not. That's compassion.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by brokenhead »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:The reason for this is that the knowledge of truth brings with it neither loss nor gain. There is no status to be gained, or fun and entertainment to be gleaned. But with belief, people are able use it to bolster themselves – as I’ve already described.
So that explains it. All this running after the truth turns out not to be fun. Now I get it. You're not having any fun, and it bothers you when other people have fun, so you try to make sure they have less of it.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Nick »

Personally, brokenhead, I find what Sue has written there far more powerful, inspirational, profound, meaningful, and full of life than what you call "fun". Plus, your idea of "fun", is the cause of all suffering in this world, and Sue, as compassionate as she is, provides you and the rest of humanity the stepping stones to alleviate yourself from this suffering. So, if a wise man, in a moment of weakness, ever does get frustrated with you and your ilk having "fun" at the expense of truth, you'll have to forgive him, because you must know he's doing it with the purest of hearts.
Steven Coyle

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Steven Coyle »

When I learned the final secret of Nature, I reabsorbed all my childhood adventures.

Zupe!
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Ataraxia »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: If something is true, you don’t need belief in it being true – it’s just true.
Jed MCkenna hits the nail on the head here.
User avatar
Loki
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 am

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Loki »

Ataraxia wrote:
Sue Hindmarsh wrote: If something is true, you don’t need belief in it being true – it’s just true.
Jed MCkenna hits the nail on the head here.
"I'm telling you it's infinitely big and infinitely black. I'm not saying you can live with it. I'm saying the black cloud is reality, so deal with it. And if it kills you.....so the fuck what."

lol - epic.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by David Quinn »

Alex Jacob wrote:David writes: "Child molestation takes place within the matrix, but does this make it a spiritual activity? Your inability to discriminate between spiritual activity (that which promotes consciousness of truth) and non-spiritual activity (that which hinders or destroys the potential for truth-consciousness) goes to the heart of your postmodernism and your desire to remain safely ensconced within your vague, foggy world."

I personally don't believe in post-modernism,

That's very postmodernist of you. :)

I personally don't believe in post-modernism, but I am not completely opposed to, say, the term 'late-modernism'. I do think that there IS such a thing as indecisiveness in thinking, or to overwhelmed thinking, or to an acute over-abundance of information, sensation, image, etc. I suppose that is what you want to refer to by 'post-modernism'.

No, I'm referring to decisive actions taken by the mind in the face of incoming information.

More specifically, I'm refering to the mindset that rejects the concept of absolute truth, reduces everything to "narratives" and "cultural forces", possesses an inability to intellectually discriminate between things, and is fundamentally aimless.

Kierkegaard called it "many-sidedness". The lack of unity and existential coherence within the individual. He lived in an age before the term "postmodernism" was coined, but he was well aware of the disease. And it is a disease.

It isn't an issue of there being too much information at the individual's disposal, but of his lack of ability or willingness or courage to cut through all this information and reaching the very bedrock of things. Instead, he allows all the incoming information to sweep him away, such that he is just blown about in alien winds and no longer knows which way to turn.

From the look of it, though, your tactic is NOT to take up this challenge, and I think it may be your basic lack of education that determines this 'choice'. You only have access to a limited palette of information and ideas, and being at the core a true-blue conservative, with a definite puritanical streak, the easiest option is to back-up into conventional views, which is kind of like backing out of 'late modernism' and desperately seeking an anchor in a previous epoch of classical modernism---a strange, foreign, decidedly non-Nietzschean territory BTW, that is to say Ramakrishnaism and this pre-modern or late-Medieval orientation.

From my observations, the task of using reason and introspection to eliminate all delusion from the mind and comprehend the ultimate truth has hardly been attempted by anyone in history. It's as far away from the conservative view-point as one could possibly imagine.

On the other hand, losing oneself in postmodernist many-sidedness is very much the conventional way at the moment. It is the fashion of our times.

Really, it just gets weirder and weirder with you. How you could EVER and with a straight face propose that Nietzsche, who plunged so deeply into the issues and problems of late-modernism would even or could even have admired or condoned YOUR conservative tactics and choices is beyond me.
Probably because he said things like this:

"Better know naught than half-know much! Better be a fool on ones own merits than a wise man by other folks opinions! I go to the roots. What mattereth great or small, marsh or heaven? An hand-breadth of territory is sufficient for me, if it be real rock-bottom territory!"

(Taken from Thus Spake Zarathustra.)

"I am opposed to your broadening away from the narrow gate. This is a timeless objection, not an antiquated one."

Again, what we need is an ever-increasing spiritual subtlety, a Nietzschean subtlety if you will permit me the term. I could also say that we need an ever-increasing Christian subtlety, and a Hindu subtlety, and on and on.
Without going through that narrow gate, there is no spirituality. There is only increasingly subtle levels of egotism, fantasy and emotionalism.

I certainly would never dismiss the term 'narrow gate', it would be hard to do this in the strict sense of the Jesus-mission. Jesus was a Jew and spoke from the Jewish tradition, he was not a Brahman worshipping in front of a sacrificial fire. But we do have a pretty strict and defined idea of what is the 'narrow gate' for a Brahman-worshipper. All the data is there, all we have to do is refer to it.

But, for 'us', I would simply suggest that the nature of the 'narrow gate' has not been forever decided.

If, by "us", you mean you and you alone, Aex, that is very true. It's how you like it.

Again, you need to take your responsibility for your own decisions and actions. Your inability to define the narrow gate is a failure of your own character and mental processes. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

Oddly enough---disturbingly enough---it is really Life that provides answers to such questions, and sometimes the answers go against our 'rehearsals' of 'timeless spiritual truths'. With that, I would say that any person who reads here on GF will have many different 'answers' that have to do with their own life, their own 'road'. For someone, the 'narrow gate' could be finding a way to simply love another person, to take the personalist message to another level. It could be very many different and distinct things. It could very well be that this 'narrow gate' might be very much more hard to approach or pass through than the 'narrow gate' you present, with all its dogmatic, determined tones.

I've used this analogy in the past, but it is an effective one and very much applies here:
Imagine that the human race is forced from the surface of the earth for some reason and becomes lost deep within a vast system of underground caves. Also imagine that after several generations have passed, all memory of the earth's surface disappears, save for a few vague parables and tales. The human race settles down in the caves and etches out a comfortable existence as best it can.

In this scenario:

- The underground caves represent the immense philosophical ignorance which currently afflicts the human race.

- The artist is the person who sits around painting pictures of life within the caves. He never searches for the surface himself, although he may paint a few soulful yearning pictures of what he imagines might exist beyond the caves.

- The scientist is the one who measures the walls and floors of the caves and constructs theories about how the caves were formed.

- The academic philosopher sits around having obscure formal debates with other academic philosophers, just as they always do.

- The spiritual person is the one who becomes deeply dissatisfied with life within the caves and goes off in seach of something better.

- The enlightened person is the one who actually succeeds in reaching the surface.

- The spiritual teacher is the one, who having reached the surface himself, constructs black-and-white arrow signs which help direct other seekers along the complex pathways of the cave system, and is roundly laughed at by a disinterested humanity for his troubles.
We can add the postmodernist to the mix. We can imagine a conversation between him and the excited man:

Man: Hey everyone! I've found a way out of here! I've found the surface! Sunshine, blue skies, fresh air, trees, birds, flowers, running streams - it's amazing! Come, we just have to go through that exit there and crawl a bit and we're there!

Postmodernist: You are delusional. There is no way out of here. It's a cultural myth.

Man: But I've just been up there. Come, I'll show you the way.

Postmodernist: You expect us to leave this vast cave, our home, with all its traditions and riches and crawl through that narrow exit?

Man: There is only a little bit of discomfort and then you'll be free!

Postmodernist: No, I'm sorry, that is very restricting. You can't possibly expect us to do that. If we start crawling around in those caves, we'll only become trapped. We could go crazy. We could die. And for what? An adolescent myth that no one in their right minds would believe in? I'm sorry, but my wife is over there. I think I'll just go and snuggle up to her, if you don't mind. I might even go and smell her underwear, so stick that in your proverbial and shove it. I am the king of kings!

I only suggest that when we live in life, our spiritual path is always more local, more immediate.
Without going through that narrow gate, there is no spirituality, localized or otherwise.

On the other hand, those who do go through that narrow gate quickly find that everything around them and inside them is part of Nature's amazing spiritual reality. For them, there is no longer any distinction between local and non-local.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Shahrazad »

David,
From my observations, the task of using reason and introspection to eliminate all delusion from the mind and comprehend the ultimate truth has hardly been attempted by anyone in history.
Not even by the Buddha?

BTW, the analogy you wrote in your last post is wonderful.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by David Quinn »

Shahrazad wrote:David,
From my observations, the task of using reason and introspection to eliminate all delusion from the mind and comprehend the ultimate truth has hardly been attempted by anyone in history.

Not even by the Buddha?
I did use the word "hardly".

There have been probably been hundreds who have successfully attempted the task, although our written records only feature a couple of dozen or so. Still an extremely small minority.

Hopefully, they are harbingers of things to come, like wisps of smoke indicating the onslaught of a fiery blaze.

-
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Alex Jacob »

Y'all will surely be up in the "sunshine, blue skies, fresh air, (with) trees, birds, flowers, running streams", sniffing the flowers, running and cavorting like joyful pups in the Sun behind the Sun, while I shall forever remain 'here below', rummaging through the shadows, rooting around amid the chimera of my own delusions!

All I'll have to sniff will be...

Well, you know the answer to that!

Alex Jacob formally says 'au revoir' to all the denizens here! Think of him from time to time: imprisoned in his dreary dungeon with the scraggly, befuddled Macaw, in love with the labyrinth!
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Alex, I wouldn't have said anything if you had a snowball's chance in hell of surviving it. Recall, I said what your own revelation would be three pages before you did to everyone but you. I did not have to email them. It was easy. Like everything that happens here, I said it in such a way that it went right over your head.

Since then, in mere days, I've figured out more about you -- good and bad -- than you have humbled yourself to learn in fifty fucking years. And, quite frankly, you have no fucking idea what I actually want to hear from you. If you dedicated yourself to wisdom right now, maybe starting with something simple like A=A, you might be able to figure it out before senility sets in.
Sun Tzu wrote:Good warriors seek effectiveness in battle from the force of momentum, not from individual people. Therefore, they are able to choose people and let the force of momentum do its work.

Getting people to fight by letting the force of momentum work is like rolling logs and rocks. Logs and rocks are still when in a secure place, but roll on an incline; they remain stationary if square, they roll if round. Therefore, when people are skillfully led into battle, the momentum is like that of round rocks rolling down a high mountain -- that is force.
A mindful man needs few words.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by brokenhead »

Nick Treklis wrote:Personally, brokenhead, I find what Sue has written there far more powerful, inspirational, profound, meaningful, and full of life than what you call "fun". Plus, your idea of "fun", is the cause of all suffering in this world, and Sue, as compassionate as she is, provides you and the rest of humanity the stepping stones to alleviate yourself from this suffering. So, if a wise man, in a moment of weakness, ever does get frustrated with you and your ilk having "fun" at the expense of truth, you'll have to forgive him, because you must know he's doing it with the purest of hearts.
Yes, Nick, I get that this is Sue's mission. And that all the wise men all have a natural mission, which springs from their enlightenment, and so on and so forth. I understand all that. So I will merrily forgive all of your frustrations as you try to fit the camel through the Eye of the Needle. May God bless all your pure hearts.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by BMcGilly07 »

Something about a spoon never tasting the soup no matter how long they are together in a bowl, just so an ignorant person will never benefit from the wisdom of a wise man no matter how much they associate.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by brokenhead »

Alex Jacob wrote:Alex Jacob formally says 'au revoir' to all the denizens here! Think of him from time to time: imprisoned in his dreary dungeon with the scraggly, befuddled Macaw, in love with the labyrinth!
Soar, little Weisenheimer! Soar like an eagle!
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by brokenhead »

BMcGilly07 wrote:Something about a spoon never tasting the soup no matter how long they are together in a bowl, just so an ignorant person will never benefit from the wisdom of a wise man no matter how much they associate.
That's quite profound.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by brokenhead »

[b]David Quinn[/b] wrote:We can add the postmodernist to the mix. We can imagine a conversation between him and the excited man:

Man: Hey everyone! I've found a way out of here! I've found the surface! Sunshine, blue skies, fresh air, trees, birds, flowers, running streams - it's amazing! Come, we just have to go through that exit there and crawl a bit and we're there!

Postmodernist: You are delusional. There is no way out of here. It's a cultural myth.

Man: But I've just been up there. Come, I'll show you the way.

Postmodernist: You expect us to leave this vast cave, our home, with all its traditions and riches and crawl through that narrow exit?

Man: There is only a little bit of discomfort and then you'll be free!

Postmodernist: No, I'm sorry, that is very restricting. You can't possibly expect us to do that. If we start crawling around in those caves, we'll only become trapped. We could go crazy. We could die. And for what? An adolescent myth that no one in their right minds would believe in? I'm sorry, but my wife is over there. I think I'll just go and snuggle up to her, if you don't mind. I might even go and smell her underwear, so stick that in your proverbial and shove it. I am the king of kings!
The irony of this is also profound, O great King of the Feast.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by BMcGilly07 »

brokenhead wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote:Alex Jacob formally says 'au revoir' to all the denizens here! Think of him from time to time: imprisoned in his dreary dungeon with the scraggly, befuddled Macaw, in love with the labyrinth!
Soar, little Weisenheimer! Soar like an eagle!
Take your elk with you.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Shahrazad »

Take your elk with you.
Alex can go, but the elk stays!
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by brokenhead »

Shahrazad wrote:
Take your elk with you.
Alex can go, but the elk stays!
Thank you, Shah.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by Blair »

Bye Alex.

And do yourself a favour, grow up a bit.
xerox

Re: The Problem With Women Today

Post by xerox »

...
Last edited by xerox on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked