The Problem With Women Today

[Carl G]

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.

Carl: Why?

Sue: It’s madness to accessorize the self without first knowing what it is!

We have not established that no one knows what the self is.

Anyway, you made a blanket statement that anyone who believes in "angels, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads" is grasping, cowardly, and mad. Your argument is what?

You quoted Alex as saying “My answer is that one does it by grounding oneself in one's own life, in one's own body, and understanding that our experiences come to us in this platform, in this biological, psychological structure”.

You called his statement a fantasy world and "That’s just grasping without any thought as to whether or not any of it is true. It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice."

Are you really claiming that anyone who acknowledges the physical side of life cannot by definition be thinking about the relative truth of the physical? Are you seriously calling it grasping, again by definition (true in all cases) that someone would do this? And are you considering an acknowledgment of the physical to be akin to believing in angels, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads? And, have we really proven that none of those entities exist in the physical, or more accurately said, in anything but the imagination?

Carl: 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?

Sue: 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.

By definition? What about the role of ordinary ignorance; i.e. we identify with our bodies because we haven't yet learned to see from a broader perspective.

What I am against here is blanket statements, and so I challenge what seems to be some of those from you.

Examples of which are the adoption of fairies into one’s life because they’re said to bring good luck.

Okay, but what about those who have experienced fairies, those who have, for instance seen fairies, those for whom fairies are more than a fairy story?

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.

Again, on what authority do we dismiss fairies as being definitely never more than a product of the imagination?

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).

Agreed about growing up, but how do we know that there are no gods, goddesses, what you refer to as 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.

Here you are creating a cartoon, which is quite easily mocked. I was asking if belief in angels, etc. was cowardly, mad, and grasping by definition (in all cases). I don't think your cartoon argues that. Certainly some people have cartoonish beliefs, but all? How can we know this? How do we know it is not you who is imagining.

Most people have one or more of these pets (what else are they?!),

What else are they?! Well, they could be actual appearances (aka things).

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.

Yada yada. I tire of hearing of these lowlife, but again, how do we know your cartoon fits all people. I don't believe it does. Do you think everyone who sees a ghost is imagining it? Are they in all cases 'grasping'?

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.

Again, I do not like blanket statements, like ones that imply that belief can never be supported by or based upon evidence, that all belief is total fantasy.

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.

These are unsupported assertions. You have given us no reason -- other than your own belief system -- to conclude that there are no fairies or deities existent in the world.

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.

Truth encompasses those things, it doesn't deny them. But you are speaking metaphorically of the rose-colored eyes, again the cartoon. But the reality of truth and the possibility of fairies are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as you seem to make them out to be. A guru can point to the truth. Because you dislike gurus does not make them or what they can do into a fantasy in all cases. So stop generalizing according to your bias.

Sue: It takes a moment of thought to see that believing things bring with them gain or loss is completely false.

Carl: Sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.

Sue: 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?

Having an experience (of fairies, or of eating a piece of bread, it doesn't matter) is just that. It doesn't add or subtract.

Sue: Things are the same as you, so what can be gained or lost?

Carl: Ultimately all is one, yes. But what does that have to do with distinguishing between appearances?

Sue: “Distinguishing” them truthfully, perhaps? What do you reckon?

I reckon the same. That is why I say if I see a fairy, "I see a fairy." I refuse to call it a fantasy.

Sue: Is your argument (your belief) that there is no usefulness in any belief whatsoever, not even a belief in truth?

Carl: If something is true, you don’t need belief in it being true – it’s just true.

I agree, one could say that knowable absolute truths are beyond belief. This does not mean there is no useful function in any belief, i.e. hypothesis, theory, and working model based empirical evidence, i.e. experience.

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.

Or, they are able to guide themselves to greater and greater accuracy in thinking. Belief is not the automatic road to ruin you see it being. You are too dogmatic. And full of beliefs yourself, to come on so pious and strict.

[brokenhead]

Yada yada. I tire of hearing of these lowlife, but again, how do we know your cartoon fits all people. I don't believe it does. Do you think everyone who sees a ghost is imagining it? Are they in all cases 'grasping'?

This happens to be my own objection to the way Sue in particular voices what she thinks the enlightened viewpoint is supposed to be. It is a bull-in-the-china-shop mentality. She has been inundated with this kind of philosophy and paraphrases it, sometimes quite well, but rarely exhibiting any original insight or input. Sue concludes that what has not occurred in her own experience never will, and cannot have in anyone else's, and if they think it has, they must be living in a fantasy world. Worse, their fantasy world is not of their own making, but they are following the masses in believing a standard, ready-made one.

This is precisely what Sue is doing herself. I tend to agree with Carl on this, which objection he has consistently stated before. How do you know that someone else's beliefs are invalid if all you really know is that you have not had experiences which would lead you yourself to those beliefs?

[David Quinn]

You're both missing Sue's point, I believe. Her interest isn't in the mundane question of whether ghosts and angels actually exist, but in the far more interesting question of why people desire to believe in these things.

Given that ghosts and angels are empirical in nature and therefore their existence is inherently uncertain (which means that their existence will always be uncertain, no matter whether you think you have experienced them or not), the belief in their existence becomes a purely psychological issue. It reflects directly on the person holding such beliefs.

Her contention that the desire to believe in these things is simply a way to pad out one's existence, as a kind of comfort blanket against reality, is right on the mark.

-

[Carl G]

Does a belief in bread also constitute grasping and "padding out one's existence"? If not, what's the difference?

[brokenhead]

You're both missing Sue's point, I believe. Her interest isn't in the mundane question of whether ghosts and angels actually exist, but in the far more interesting question of why people desire to believe in these things.

Given that ghosts and angels are empirical in nature and therefore their existence is inherently uncertain (which means that their existence will always be uncertain, no matter whether you think you have experienced them or not), the belief in their existence becomes a purely psychological issue. It reflects directly on the person holding such beliefs.

Her contention that the desire to believe in these things is simply a way to pad out one's existence, as a kind of comfort blanket against reality, is right on the mark.

-

No we are not missing the point. You are. Spoon-feeding us what Sue said does not address the point. The point is reality may indeed include the ghosts and angels. I am simply facing that reality. What you have done in this post is what you do in your head. You dismiss things that you do not understand. Even the way you phrase it: "...you think you have experienced..." Then you assign an "-ology" to them. In this case, it is "psychology."

You state: "It reflects directly on the person holding such beliefs."

We are not talking about reflections, but of experiences. You have not experienced anything that would make you change your mind. It does not imply that no such experience will occur in the future. It also does not imply that no one has ever had a genuine encounter with a "ghost" or a "spirit" or whatever else it is that you and Sue say does not exist.

The difference that I see is that my Weltanschauung grows. Yours does not. That is because mine is alive and yours is is not.

[David Quinn]

Does a belief in bread also constitute grasping and "padding out one's existence"? If not, what's the difference?

There is no difference, at root. Wanting to believe in bread involves the same mental sickness as wanting to believe in ghosts and angels.

-

[Carl G]

And what if the experiencer (of fairies, ghosts, or bread) understands that the thing has no inherent existence but that it does have a relative existence (i.e. an actual appearance)? Is the experiencer still "desperately grasping" "utterly mad" and refusing to grow by conjuring up fantasies?

[David Quinn]

You're both missing Sue's point, I believe. Her interest isn't in the mundane question of whether ghosts and angels actually exist, but in the far more interesting question of why people desire to believe in these things.

Given that ghosts and angels are empirical in nature and therefore their existence is inherently uncertain (which means that their existence will always be uncertain, no matter whether you think you have experienced them or not), the belief in their existence becomes a purely psychological issue. It reflects directly on the person holding such beliefs.

Her contention that the desire to believe in these things is simply a way to pad out one's existence, as a kind of comfort blanket against reality, is right on the mark.

No we are not missing the point. You are. Spoon-feeding us what Sue said does not address the point. The point is reality may indeed include the ghosts and angels.

Indeed, that is true. However, Sue has already indicated that she has no position on the matter and has no real interest in it either way.

I am simply facing that reality.

At the expense of facing certain kinds of psychological realities.

What you have done in this post is what you do in your head. You dismiss things that you do not understand. Even the way you phrase it: "...you think you have experienced..." Then you assign an "-ology" to them. In this case, it is "psychology."

We cannot be sure about anything that we experience in the empirical realm. Our conclusions about what we experience is ultimately a matter of what we decide to think about them.

Our experiential reality is indeed mind-created.

-

[David Quinn]

And what if the experiencer (of fairies, ghosts, or bread) understands that the thing has no inherent existence but that it does have a relative existence (i.e. an actual appearance)? Is the experiencer still "desperately grasping" "utterly mad" and refusing to grow by conjuring up fantasies?

If he were to suppress the fact that he may have hallucinated his experience, or otherwise misread the situation, for the sake of taking refuge in a firm belief out of psychological need, then yes, he would be entering into a form of mental illness. He would be losing sight of the bigger picture and consequently losing his objectivity.

Likewise, if he were to place a different level of importance on the existence of ghosts and angels - e.g. inject a greater emotional investment in them - as he does on bread, he would be losing his objectivity.

It is closely-related to the mental illness which underpins love.

-

[|read|]

How would you describe the mental illness which underpins love?

[Rhett]

All that you have shared is just a group of abstractions. It is some stuff you have heard, have thought about, and repeat. What is missing---vitally missing---is the first-person point-of-view. Instead of speaking reciting what you think is 'true', imagine as true, or hope to be true, it could all (and should all) become infinitely more real if you were to talk in the first person singular. Because as it is, 'you' don't know what you're talking about...

What i wrote is true and is in no need of context. What was desired to be conveyed was conveyed. Your response affirms your attachment, your craving, to believe in false abstractions, including that of a body containing a mind. This abstraction and others sully the mind, and render it liable to further faults. If you don't address such falsities you are not on a spiritual path.

[Carl G]

And what if the experiencer (of fairies, ghosts, or bread) understands that the thing has no inherent existence but that it does have a relative existence (i.e. an actual appearance)? Is the experiencer still "desperately grasping" "utterly mad" and refusing to grow by conjuring up fantasies?

If he were to suppress the fact that he may have hallucinated his experience, or otherwise misread the situation, for the sake of taking refuge in a firm belief out of psychological need, then yes, he would be entering into a form of mental illness. He would be losing sight of the bigger picture and consequently losing his objectivity.

Likewise, if he were to place a different level of importance on the existence of ghosts and angels - e.g. inject a greater emotional investment in them - as he does on bread, he would be losing his objectivity.

It is closely-related to the mental illness which underpins love.

-

If we are playing the ultimate-card any time to discredit belief in (acknowledgment of) relative existence, that is, all of empirical phenomena, why, then, do we tolerate the Worldly Matters Forum, where we regularly allow the view that such things as politics, music, and videos actually exist, implying identification with empirical things, i.e. belief, therein implying mental illness? Why do we sponsor and indeed foster mental illness here? Why do we grant any credence at all to the empirical realm?

More to the point, if those were Sue's true and original opinions on the matter, why did she offer examples which were all things she considers purely fanciful (angels, fairies, gods, etc)(except for Guru, to her the worst form of con-artist) instead of also including bread? I think she was expressing personal bias, and then when called on it, played the ultimate-card: well, ultimately it's all illusion.

[brokenhead]

Indeed, that is true. However, Sue has already indicated that she has no position on the matter and has no real interest in it either way.

Sue has no position because she has no interest. That's the whole point. She has no interest, no position, and yet she will write about it and comment upon the positions other people may take.

bh: The point is reality may indeed include the ghosts and angels. I am simply facing that reality.
DQ: At the expense of facing certain kinds of psychological realities.

Such as?

We cannot be sure about anything that we experience in the empirical realm. Our conclusions about what we experience is ultimately a matter of what we decide to think about them.

Our experiential reality is indeed mind-created.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The interplay between one's mind and utterly everything else is what constitutes experiential reality.

If my hand were placed on a butcher's block and the butcher took his cleaver and had a mighty chop at my fingers, I would experience my fingers being severed. And I would be shit-sure of it.

Only the middle of the three sentences in this quote from you is true.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If my hand were placed on a butcher's block and the butcher took his cleaver and had a mighty chop at my fingers, I would experience my fingers being severed. And I would be shit-sure of it.

Naw, the mind can always play tricks.

[Carl G]

I don't believe in Trevor. There, I've said it. And I feel much better. Sue is right, only the Absolute matters.

I don't believe in Sue either. I'm through grasping, done with the madness.

[dysfunctionalgenius]

When u start a topic titled ' The problem with women today ' u automatically suggest its a fact, regardless who has initiated the topic its sexist and irrational.

If u look 4 women with problems ull find them everywhere and dont forget there is a good chance the title is a male's projection!

Like me if u look hard enough ull find problems with everything.

Where is George Carlin?

[Tomas]

-tomas-
Brokie will be banned before you would be.

Why? .. you deny being a butt-buddy whereas he has said he has been.

I shall ask you to clarify what you mean here, Tomas.

Diebert, are you getting a little cranky these days?

What do you mean "these days"?

He refuses to trust brokenhead, or any others, to represent his views in any way. Paranoia is the word that describes lack of trust. Egotism describes that strong urge to own a viewpoint (an egotism he revealed elsewhere by projecting it onto David).

Yet Alex considers himself a friend of man!
Sher, "Alex and his ilk" referred to Alex and brokenhead. Brokenhead was defending Alex's views.

Now, after 2 days of thinking about his ego, Alex refuses to be associated with brokenhead, calling 'Elk' (an obvious-as-dirt pun) "dirty, perverse, domineering, undependable, variable, conniving creatures that lack grace and good manners."

He refuses to trust brokenhead, or any others, to represent his views in any way. Paranoia is the word that describes lack of trust. Egotism describes that strong urge to own a viewpoint (an egotism he revealed elsewhere by projecting it onto David).

Yet Alex considers himself a friend of man!

Trevor, what's with you? Why should Alex not speak for himself? Don't you do that?

I hafta admit these were the better posting days:
1. A little bit of David's thought.
2. Diebert getting in his licks.
3. Trevor tryin' to figger it out.
4. Brokie keeping the faith with Alex.
5. Sue taking a hiatus.
6. Rhett's decent thoughts.
7. Shah's fence-sitting.
8. prince's brief [to the point] comments.
9. And, our Kelly Jones: Her blog on Matriarchy: http://www.philosophecafe.yuku.com/topi ... archy.html

[Blair]

And Tomas is becoming more ordinary and normal by the day.

What happened to you man, you used to be so ..beautiful

[yana]

is that they don't think nearly enough. Woman -Woe man. There, I've said enough.

[Tomas]

I might even go and smell her underwear, so stick that in your proverbial and shove it.

Sweet!!!

[Tomas]

Perhaps a good way to tackle this issue is to examine what happens when a group of women at a hen's party are confronted with a male stripper. As a rule, they immediately swoon into a kind of collective hysteria, with much squealing and giggling. They seem to get very animated, much more so than what men do in the reverse situation, with each participant behaving in a near-identical manner.

The rooster may crow but the hen delivers the goods.

[mensa-maniac]

The Problem With Women Today

The problem with woman today are in men's minds, it's a good thing women are smarter than what men think, otherwise women would be listening to this nonsense.

The Problem With Men Today:

The problem with men today is that they see a problem with women today, that's a problem!

Is there a problem with the sexes?

No, there is a problem thinking there is a problem where there's no problem, which is the problem, so the problem lies in the men's minds thinking there is a problem with women.

The only way men will appreciate women is to ostracize men from the women, separate them into two worlds, men on one side and women on the other. After a couple of years without women, men would welcome seeing them again, but is it in a mans nature to shun women for another mans intellect.

To Be Continued...

[Bob Michael]

The only problem with women is that most of us men are not man-enough to know how to treat them. Though there are many women, as is the case too with men, who have been so damaged by their conditioning or enculturation that they can be quite dangerous and are to be avoided at all costs. Hence good men need to learn to distinguish between the women who have pure hearts and those who don't. And vice versa, of course.

[mensa-maniac]

The only problem with women is that most of us men are not man-enough to know how to treat them. Though there are many women, as is the case too with men, who have been so damaged by their conditioning or enculturation that they can be quite dangerous and are to be avoided at all costs. Hence good men need to learn to distinguish between the women who have pure hearts and those who don't. And vice versa, of course.

Mensa says: I think you're right about that! But, if women understood men, they would know that men simply want understanding and nothing less, but many women don't understand men. They don't understand that men are better men than women are women. Women are dangerous when they don't get their own way. If a thirty year old beautiful female is sexually shunned by a man, she'll take it as an ultimate insult against her and she'll have the man beaten up, because her sexual status at this age is her confidence, and if her confidence is shat upon--look out!

Men are the superior race of thinkers over women for many reasons, one being because men don't have to resort to getting angry when they speak, whereas women will become angry if they are not agreed with or if they are not listened to. If a man is not agreed with he'll think nothing of it, because his superiority of thought naturally knows this truth as truth and he does not need reassurring that he is right! Men are the stronger sex, this means women are weak, therefore, strength builds the weak and constructs it to a beautiful foundation.

Mensa says: Women and men who fit together sexually, fit together period, because compatibility is the sex bond that keeps them together.

Mensa says: Behind every good man there is a woman, and behind every good woman there is a man, they compliment each other!

[Bob Michael]

Behind every good man there is a woman, and behind every good woman there is a man, they compliment each other!

Yes they do, though the man must be the head of household, so to speak, which very, very few men truly are. Many genuinely wise and insightful men have held the following view: 'Man loves God - woman loves the God in her man'. So it must all begin and end with the spiritual integrity of the man. Though granted, due to the 'fall' or the inherent decay in the evolutionary process, neither men or women know their true nature or their full human potential. So it all comes down to the process of self-discovery. Discovering our true and full human nature and potential, both in the male and the female. But unless a person has the sensitivity, sincereity, and honesty to realize they're a fraud and they fall far short of the full glory of God or the Infinite in this area of life, there'll be no growth or development of any real account. And if and when a man and a woman do manage to become 'one-flesh', the joy and harmony that comes with such a union goes far above and beyond any squabbling whatsoever regarding the role, rights, or responsibilities of the man or the woman in that union. It will be instinctively or intuitively known by both parties and they'll be too busy living and loving for the discussion of such trivial and meaningless things.