What is the consciousness of a woman really like?

[Jason]

Marriage may tame genius

[Carmel]

It's really not the marriage that tames Genius, it's the living together. ;)

[Ataraxia]

Nabokov: You actually sound like David! Good dog! Not just religious, practically austistic. My first thought on seeing you speak on youtube was of giving you a hug! I could feel the emptiness. Kelly, a word in your ear: You are not built for the cold like I am!

I'm sorry to hear that. You've mistaken truth for the cold of a deadened spirit. Nabokov was also a ghostlike man whose mind had become confused and dizzied by breathing in too much stale air.

I imagine dejavu was refering to his favourite philophers love of 'ice and high mountains'.

Those who can breath the air of my writings know that it is an air of the heights, a strong air. One must be made for it, otherwise there is no small danger that one may catch cold in it. The ice is near, the solitude tremendous—but how calmly all things lie in the light! how freely one breathes! how much one feels beneath oneself!— Philosophy, as I have so far understood and lived it, means living voluntarily among ice and high mountains—seeking out everything strange and questionable in existence, everything so far placed under a ban by morality... — How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare?


-Ecce homo.

[Kelly Jones]

Nietzsche would freeze off dejavu's balls if he had any. I see nothing similar between Nietzsche and dejavu, except for the superficial aspect of unusual language. Where Nietzsche's artistry is sober, where he is profoundly creative because of a very clear underpinning dialectic (which forms the subject, rather than is kept hidden), where he shows profound humility and courage, and where he, even under the heavy passages of quasi-despair, is still smiling, dejavu is nowhere to be seen. dejavu doesn't exist on Nietzsche's level. dejavu is dizzy, petty, arrogant, lazy, shallow, and volatile, to paint him without going into any detail. But then, dejavu doesn't have detail: he doesn't have substance.

Notice how he loves to shroud his views in mystique and jokes and malicious pokes; it's because he doesn't have any substance. Why on earth he doesn't get bored with his obvious repetition, is because he has no substance. To clarify what Nick realised, dejavu is too lazy to work out what he really thinks, because then he'd realise he has no substance, or only the faintest sprinkling of dust. He's a social butterfly, really, that loves attention, loves to appear witty, loves to be spoilt by his love of entertaining other butterflies (women) - so the little substance he might have is even more diluted by his lack of self-discipline.

If only he could muster up something of substance, then it would be worth taking time off from my studies to read his posts. At present, he's just fluff taking up space on the forum.

[Kelly Jones]

David: To strive for genius is to strive away from the norms of humanity and to suffer the alienation and persecution this entails. It thus becomes a question for the individual male of whether the ideal is worth going through that kind of suffering. In a social environment where mediocrity is emphasized and rewarded and the values of genius are mocked, if indeed they are talked about at all, it is easy to see how the potential for genius in most boys is quickly nipped in the bud.

Carmel: I agree with that, but I think this only applies to men who have an innate aptitude for genius. Most people(both genders) don't possess it.

Everyone is capable of becoming a genius, including women. Genius isn't about being able to hold very complex trains of thought. It's a simple matter of seeing a fundamental causal relationship between things, and then applying that absolutely (without exception in one instant) so as to see the true nature of Reality, and indefinitely (without exception over a lifetime) so as to exist consciously in-tune with Reality. The problem is that men have social diversions imposed onto them from an early age; while women are not dragged back from social diversions they naturally love.

Both men and women are both cowardly and thoughtless in their subservience to society; there is not much difference. But men at least recognise the meaning of philosophy as judging truly; women don't, and will complaint about generalisations, that philosophy is unhealthy, and that making judgments is nasty. Women are pedantic about matters that just don't matter, because they naturally love social diversions - the opposite of philosophising.

[David Quinn]

David: The intellect is just as passive in women as it is in men.

dejavu: Not so. Women embody the intellect to a far greater extent than men.

David: I have no idea what you are saying here. What does "embodying the intellect" mean in this context?

lol I went on to say:

dejavu: In woman it can be a drive, whereas in man, it cannot ultimately sublimate his feeling. In short, woman is wiser than man in their most perfect aspect.

David: In what way?

Isn't it obvious? She embodies her thinking more than man does. It is inborn to a greater degree.

You're not really saying anything. You need to flesh this out and explain what this actually means. If you like, give us an example of how a woman embodies her thinking more than a man does.

And also, in case you have forgotten, I want to hear how you, being a bloke, managed to attain this understanding of what occurs in a woman's mind.

Come on, you can do it. Give us a sincere response for a change.

Is that what you think wisdom is all about? Regressing back to childhood?

You have not understood what Nietzsche and I have explained.

It's funny that you should put it like that. Do you remember those Austen Powers movies which featured a little replica of the evil guy, which he called his "mini-me". That is who you remind me of. Nietzsche's mini-me. A little guy who struts around like Nietzsche, even borrowing his phraseology and his mannerisms, giving himself airs and trying to be enigmatic like the great man himself. The only problem is, there's no content in the strutting. It's all just empty parroting.

All you're doing on this forum is playing games with people, in a smug, malicious kind of way. Nick is right in saying that your posts are indistinguishable from trolling. I'm not sure how much longer I am prepared to put up with it.

Just a friendly warning at this stage. If you want to stay around here, I'd like to see you treat everyone here with a bit more respect and stop fucking them around with the endless game-playing. Try to actually post something of substance in a clear and thoughtful way.

Or are you too afraid that if you started doing this, you'll quickly get found out?

-

[jupiviv]

You could call women every last horrible name in the book and I still wouldn't be personally offended. Words only have power over a person if they allow them to.

I'm not speaking for David here, but I don't think any woman would be personally offended by a generalisation about women, as long as she's personally not included. Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply to you.

[Kelly Jones]

Kunga,

You say you find the portrayal of feminine-mindedness ridiculous, and say you haven't much in common with it. But, without being moved to denigrate you in the slightest, and only the opposite motive, I offer an analysis of your latest reply for how it demonstrates feminine-mindedness. You mightn't believe any part of that sentence, but it's true.

This is like reading a foreign language to me ! i honestly never even heard of the word misogyny until i came to this form...

To live for over fifty years and not hear of the word, misogyny, is almost certainly a life lived in restricted circles. An unadventurous, safe, rather sheltered kind of life, not really driven by curiosity or interest in the world, or in civilisation.

i've never been a feminist...never hated men...never thought of women as inferior to men...this is all new to me..i guess i've been busy living my life....lol

The way you write shows that your mind drifts from one idea to the next, not finding a principle or an underlying structure, but flowing along accumulating reactions to the last little idea. It's "stream-of-consciousness" stuff, that is very characteristic of feminine-mindedness. Women's expression is often bland and level, where every idea is pretty much equal in importance, which indicates they don't really understand the nature of thinking. It's more like mental self-talk. Also, note that you seem to view feminism as hating men, which most feminists would probably agree is a naive and rather shallow description of feminism.

The expression lacks attention to detail, and the spelling poor for someone whose first language is English. Sometimes the first word of the sentence is capitalised, sometimes not. It shows lack of consciousness, including a lack of care about conveying meaning, which is ineffective in a philosophy forum where inattention to meaning is tantamount to a sin or at least a gross discourtesy.

The portrayal of how the feminine mind thinks ...to me is rediculous...i guess i am realizing i do not have much in common with this woman....maybe that's why it angers me to read these characterizations and portrayals...i thought i was just an average woman....i really never even think about being a woman...i just took it for granted i guess....

That you have never thought about how you relate to other women shows that you are indeed an average woman, who is really no different to other women. If you were unusual, you would know it. Also, a conscious person would consider the subject of the sexes and their dynamics one of the most interesting topics to be found; not having thought about that at all in your life (since being a woman is inseparable from those dynamics) would either be taken by a conscious person as a lie, or to indicate extreme dull-wittedness.

today i read that Plato considered the sexes to be equal....it really seems like a waste of time to degrade any human being...it's a waste of intelligence....and in my estimation...rediculous. People are people....yes we are all conditioned in many ways...men are conditioned by men & women...women are conditioned by women & men....our thinking is conditioned because we are not fully Enlightened. i bet Enlightened people have no issues with femininity or masculinity.

It has been explained several times that the critique of feminine-mindedness is not about degrading or denigrating women (or men), but about pointing out blockages and deluded habits that must be seriously investigated. That you continue on, ignoring this advice, rather than paying it any attention, also shows a meandering inattention to detail.

How you speak of conditioning is also very scripted. It's like you have heard the idea from Buddhist sermons, or in Buddhist books, and are just repeating it in a semi-conscious way, without really knowing what it means or having investigated it thoroughly. That you say "our thinking is conditioned because we are not fully Enlightened" sounds like you have been listening to far too many Buddhist teachers, and never challenged them.

Betting that enlightened people have no issues with femininity or masculinity is meaningless. That statement does nothing to prove or disprove your point. Feminine-minded folk often try to use an appeal to an external authority, because they don't know whether an idea is true or not. Namely, they haven't bothered to investigate for themselves.

Aren't philosophers concerned with world peace and more important things other than trivial gender issues ? But i guess it's not trivial anymore if it has become an obstacle that stagnates the mind in derogatory dualistic conceptions of illusional metaphors.

First, asking other people what philosophers are concerned about is again an appeal to an external authority. It doesn't provide any grounds for proving the statement.

Second, it's been explained countless times in this thread (and in David's book) what the purpose of an analysis of WOMAN is. Yet you regard it as "trivial gender issues", again ignoring the significance and weight that many posts have attributed to it. Not engaging with those ideas, but regarding them as trivial, is a pretty unconscious thing to do.

The last sentence is really awkwardly expressed. It is like a mash put together by a drunk. It doesn't even try to disprove the previous question, since an important issue isn't necessarily a true, philosophical one. And how does it become important by becoming an "obstacle that stagnates the mind in derogatory dualistic conceptions of illusional metaphors"?

That last sentence is a real doozie. Your own writing has no problem with using dualistic conceptions, or metaphors, so you could easily have left those out of the sentence. But is your sentence trying to focus on the issue of derogatory concepts, or illusional metaphors? Which is it: being derogatory (which has been already explained as a wrong interpretation of the critique) or illusional metaphors (which is also irrelevant, since you yourself use metaphors). And if illusions bother you, then you ought to explain why.

I hope this provides some window into recognising what feminine-mindedness entails. Again, it's not about being derogatory. Or rather, it is, in the sense of wishing to question and challenge the least helpful aspects of your intellectual life.

[David Quinn]

David:
The evidence is all around us. It's there in the way nearly all women and girls speak - randomly, gushedly, nervously, giddily, incoherently, emotionally. It's there in the content they focus on - clothes, fashion, furniture, ornaments, children, relationships, boyfriends. It's there in what they do with their time - their desperation in competing with other women and aping the mediocre aspects of men. It's there in the music and art they make - bland, narcissistic, self-piteous, victimized, or sometimes the other extreme: loud, brash, sexually-shocking. It's there in their lack of achievement in the realm of higher matters......

Carmel:
Certainly some girls and women exhibit some of these behaviours and attributes, but it would be just as easy for me to compile a list of the negative traits of boys and men and call it "evidence", but I have no inclination to do so. I'm guessing that you don't either.;)

Well, we all know the negative traits of the male. They are constantly articulated in our society - in the media, and by women, and by many men themselves. The male's failings are obvious and there for all to see.

When it comes to female failings and their negative qualities, it is far more hidden and hushed up. It's almost a taboo area. Whenever anyone broaches the subject, people become emotional and accusations of "misogyny" are suddenly flung about.

You must live in a fantastic part of the world, Carmel, if it really is your experience that only "some girls and women exhibit some of these behaviours and attributes." For me, it is everywhere. A never-ending supply of cloned females doing very little with their lives, except to complain and chatter endlessly about the most inane subjects.

David:
If a woman wants to be an exception, then she needs to know how to separate herself from other women

Carmel:
What makes you think I don't do this already? ...but, I don't discriminate. I separate myself from the C grade men as well, and even many of the B graders.

Good to hear.

David:
That's a good question. I believe it ultimately boils down to fear. To strive for genius is to strive away from the norms of humanity and to suffer the alienation and persecution this entails. It thus becomes a question for the individual male of whether the ideal is worth going through that kind of suffering. In a social environment where mediocrity is emphasized and rewarded and the values of genius are mocked, if indeed they are talked about at all, it is easy to see how the potential for genius in most boys is quickly nipped in the bud.

Carmel:
I agree with that, but I think this only applies to men who have an innate aptitude for genius. Most people(both genders) don't possess it. This premise might be giving the ordinary C-grade boys false hope.

True, but on the other hand, we don't really know how much potential a person has until they really give it a go. One wonders how many people become C-graders, not because of a lack of natural aptitude, but because of a lack of belief in themselves.

David:
Another interesting thing to consider is the way in which the cerebral cortex becomes relatively inactive between the ages of 16 and 25. In other words, a boy's ability to reason is hampered by a lack of activity in his frontal lobes and easily usurped by his hormones and his emotional need to find his place in society.

Carmel:
That's makes sense, but I also read something once that contradicts this...that most great works of men reach a pinnacle when they are young, in their 20's usually. For example, Einstein had established most of his theories by the time he was 25. Maybe he inadvertently found a way to sublimate all that hormonal energy into his work.

He was a bit of an outsider at a young age, wasn't he? So perhaps his emotional need to find his place in society became intertwined with his desire to make breakthroughs in physics. And of course, he did find that place when his work on relativity was published.

He was one of those boys who laid the groundwork for his genius well before the age of 16, taking a strong interest in mathematics and physics at a very early age, which then provided the momentum needed to stay on course during those difficult years between 16 and 25. It also seems that he had a very good mentor (Max Talmey) during his pre-teen years, which no doubt helped. So yes, he does demonstrate how it is possible for a young man to prosper during those difficult late-teen years.

-

[David Quinn]

Kelly comparing me to a pedophile and a social butterfly, David calling me a mini-Nietzsche and threatening to ban me,

Accused of lacking substance! it's enough to make me cry! :D

I accuse you of lacking me.

I have made all my points on this topic. I feel at fault for continuing to post after my first mention of the disgust I have with this discussion. I think David makes one good point, and that is about playfulness. If anyone truly feels I've been unfair or I've hurt their feelings, you have my honest apology.


(dejavu can still be found at genius forums. He's a bad motherfucker and you know this, but the pussy ass niggaz won't show this.)

Once again, a nothing post. So what, you're not going to answer my questions and explain clearly in more detail your understanding of woman's mind? If you're genuine, I'd really like to hear about it.

At the moment, I have the very strong impression that you're not genuine, that you constantly hide a poorly-developed understanding of things behind an obscure and ambiguous use of language, much like how a second-rate academic hides his lack of understanding behind complex sentence-structures filled with overly-technical jargon.

You want to play the big man on this forum, fine. But you're going to have to show that you have what it takes to do this, other than messing people around with game-playing. I'm going to be insisting on it.

So again, please provide some nice, clear answers to my questions, with lots of details and examples, so that we can all share in this wondrous understanding that you have.

-

[jupiviv]

He was a bit of an outsider at a young age, wasn't he? So perhaps his emotional need to find his place in society became intertwined with his desire to make breakthroughs in physics. And of course, he did find that place when his work on relativity was published.

I wouldn't consider Einstein to be a genius, but Weininger is a counter-example to the idea that young people can't reach genius. In fact, if you're not wise by the time you're 25, then you probably don't have much scope of becoming one later on. Even if you do, you'll probably have a hard time dealing with all the changes, as the mind would be more rigid and less open to criticism and judgment.

[Jeannie]

Ah...David.....

You continue to exude examples of where men are better at this, that and the other thing. Women are STILL treated as second class in many societies. Throughout history women probably would have been killed for even WANTING to learn.

In the middle east girls are forced to marry old men etc

I find it amusing that on one hand you reject great works of art, music etc as really important when it comes to enlightenment.

Then you brag about how men are better at everything. What the fuck have you done in these areas???? Have you played tennis? Obviously men have more power behind them as they are BUILT differently. Evonne Cawley's win in Wimbledon 1980 was a proud moment for me. But, you wouldn't get that would you?

You may not literally HATE women, but by jove, you obviously think little of them. Please do NOT assume women do not "think" just because they do not feel the need to put their ideas in writing. Once again, man's "strength" has over-ridden many women.

I wonder what an 18 year old male raping an 82 year old woman says about him. Was he on his way to enlightenment while he was bashing her? Oh dear, am I getting emotional? Too fuckin right I am!

Don't forget...there ARE absolute truths ie. A=A......then there are QRS opinions and prejudices!

[Dan Rowden]

You might want to argue a specific point. You know, focus, zero in, as opposed to oppose aimlessly, which is what you've really done so far.

Cawley? Honestly, what the hell point is that supposed to be?

[David Quinn]

Ah...David.....

You continue to exude examples of where men are better at this, that and the other thing. Women are STILL treated as second class in many societies. Throughout history women probably would have been killed for even WANTING to learn.

Generally speaking, women enjoy being second-hand citizens, so long as it not made too obvious that they are indeed second-hand citizens (and even then, many women enjoy that too). It is something which has been built into their evolution, as part of their role as domestic creatures, nurturers and food gatherers (as opposed to the male's role of hunting, defending the tribe, war-mongering and political leadership). It is also built into their sexuality, which involves the male seizing control.

This, I believe, is the primary reason why women have consistently put up with being "oppressed" throughout human history. They have, for the most part, gone along with the oppression and enjoyed it. They enjoyed, and still enjoy, the special status accorded to them for simply being women. They enjoy being placed on a pedestal and being protected by men. They enjoy being pretty and decorative and the attention it brings. They enjoy exercising their feminine charms and controlling men through their sexuality.

The only real victims in all of this were those few women, a rare few in each generation, who were genuinely intelligent and masculine in their nature and were prevented from fulfilling their ambitions by the patriarchal laws which were endorsed by the rest of womankind, and also, of course, by men. For them, the oppression was real. But for most women, it was a perfectly satisfactory state of affairs.

You may not literally HATE women, but by jove, you obviously think little of them.

I think highly enough of them to want to help them, but the first step towards that is clearing away all the nonsense and lies which encase their lives and admitting the true situation. Otherwise, nothing will ever change.

I wonder what an 18 year old male raping an 82 year old woman says about him. Was he on his way to enlightenment while he was bashing her?

I pretty much doubt it. It's an interesting type of crime, though. Quite bizarre, really. At first glance, I guess it would have something to do with unresolved issues concerning the male's mother or grandmother, or perhaps older women in general. Rape is primarily an act of revenge, so it could be that the male is exacting revenge, in a crude, ill-directed manner, for hurt done to him by women, or by society as a whole. Or perhaps it just one of those things where the young man snaps due to building pressures in his life and the old woman just happens to be nearby.

Has anybody studied this type of crime?

-

[jupiviv]

The only real victims in all of this were those few women, a rare few in each generation, who were genuinely intelligent and masculine in their nature and were prevented from fulfilling their ambitions by the patriarchal laws which were endorsed by the rest of womankind, and also, of course, by men. For them, the oppression was real. But for most women, it was a perfectly satisfactory state of affairs.

I'm highly doubtful about whether there were(or are) any such women. Women have had enough opportunities to exhibit genius for the last 5000 years or so, but there haven't been any female geniuses. Take religion for example. More than 90% of wisdom is in the form of religious texts, and it's not as if women were forbidden from writing religious scriptures or practicing religion. In fact, there are female religious leaders and scholars in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and probably also in Christianity and the Chinese religions. The amount of wisdom that has come from them - zero. A quick survey would reveal that all of those women were simply parroting what they heard from their teachers or read in a book.

I remember reading somewhere that a Japanese zen master once tried to bring women into the Zen practice. After a lifetime of testing women, he failed to pass even a single woman as a zen master.

Rape is primarily an act of revenge

Not necessarily; the context would matter. I agree somewhat with the feminists who say that all men are rapists, as sex is an act of destruction.

[Kunga]

Kelly...i appreciate your critique on my last post...i will respond in detail when i get home tonight . i am not ashamed of my femininity, or my masculinity. i am not concerned with the rules of grammar...i like breaking the rules ...lol fuck grammar....lol i've always been a rebel. i just started watching your videos at youtube...you will be my teacher on this stuff....one thing...it's finally sinking in ...a few things about how some females act....i agree with some of the behavior...but the examples you provided in a few posts back were more like portrayals of immature young girls OR BOYS ...not a mature adult woman or man....(i will respond in detail later, as i am not familiar with this computer i'm at now....it doesn't work like the one i have at home.)

But i am appreciative of this awakening/education/opening my eyes to the gender issues i have ignored (other than my awareness of how women are treated in the Mid-East, Muslim culture & Indian culture.) I never realized it was a prevalent issue in this country or other modern/westernized countries....as it is backwards and archaic .....i am amazed at my ignorance.

_/\_



believe it or not ...i spent over an hour detailing a response...and i was logged out automatically !!! i will try again tomorrow night...too tired now.

[Jeannie]

Dan

The point of Evonne Cawley was that it was an achievement for her to win Wimbledon again. But, no, only men have the right to achieve stuff in sport etc

David.............how about the guy is an example of a gutless, pathetic, piece of shit who doesn't deserve to live after doing that. Responsibility for one's actions is a dying art. Yes, David, I am sure a 12 year old enjoys being married to an 80 year old man. As if women want your "guidance" or what ever the hell you want to call it.

Never mind........the bottom line is, if becoming enlightened means being like you lot, I will pass. So would a large percentage of the population I am guessing.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan

The point of Evonne Cawley was that it was an achievement for her to win Wimbledon again. But, no, only men have the right to achieve stuff in sport etc

That's not much of a point, and barely relevant to anything David has said. Every person who wins in sport achieves something. Personally I think tennis is a bad choice of sport for David's point. The main difference between male and female tennis is power rather than strategy or finesse, much like in golf. And frankly, much of the strategy and finesse in male tennis is driven by the simple need to overcome that power.

[Anders Schlander]

There were times that they were not, times when they had opportunities, but prevailing throughout that was threat of violence from men.

Yes, I should have remembered the famous dictum in the Quran - "no woman shall think, or else she shall be slapped three times by her father or husband." They still do that in Afghanistan, but the Muslims here in India are more civilised. They slap women only if they try to read and write.

Women's "silent treatment", the nagging, lassitude, subtle sneering, and other forms of emotional manipulation, is how they slap men. Tiny little slaps every day, that are so quiet and insignificant that it can't be taken as a revolt. Just something to complain about to other men. But just that passivity, the dragging weight, the wet blanket, the inactivity, is women's domestic torture. Their refusal to get involved, to start burning with revolutionary passion and violence, their refusal to engage in dialogue except to spout emotionalisms and idiocies, is precisely how women assert their superior power.

Women have countless opportunities, but they can't be bothered to do anything but what they please. Woman = saboteur, frustrator, dampener, grumpy bum, sour lemon, dud. They are similar to feral anarchists, whose motto is "fuck the system", and who regard it as honorable to articulate smug philosophies, and create alternative systems, which are always parasitic on the one they want to destroy. Where is the sincerity, the individuality, the honesty, the refusal to take cues from other people, the resourcefulness from within the inner garden, the courage to throw everything to the wind but the one value?

To keep making excuses for women is self-serving sabotage. Don't fritter your energies away. Step over her, and find a better attitude.

Hello kelly, good that alot of activity has come back to the board..

Pretty accurate analysis - from my experience.

Women are not able to confront something rationally, their mind is in a mess, if it is anything like what I tried recently, the state of which consciousness is very low, the mind is dulled such that it cannot penetrate or focus, one cannot grab hold of a thought, it seems to keep being one step away, kind of like a bad dream. Just stay alive, it's a battle of the senses. Women may just be trying to stay afloat, and as they can't use reason, they mold themselves to fit the world around them.

men are not much better, but they do have the hope of being occasionally rational while the average women is not fortunate enough to have privilege, however, though a man is occasionally rational, there is usually sufficient 'help' to keep him safe and he will stay herdlike. It's just so rare that anybody is caused to want to use reason.

As opposed to not needing to 'fit in' the first place, most people mold themselves to fit the world to a large degree. Men however do it less, they are less swayed by fashion and the like, women are in deeper trouble as they are more dependant on their world.

Women must have biological hinderances to their individuality. I know a woman who's intelligent, however, she is cursed with a large desire to fit the world, the herd, and her passivity. Experience has taught me that most women are much less inclined to break the grasp of the senses of immidiacy.
Funnily enough, society praises our age of individuality and freedom of choices, however, our age has made us choose whatever we have to choose to fit into society and is not free. Nor is it individualist, because fitting in is adviced. "please choose a career that conforms to our standards", women are very suited for our society, they have so many ways to become entrapped in the world and live passively....I think most people lives lifes of nonsense...

[David Quinn]

David.............how about the guy is an example of a gutless, pathetic, piece of shit who doesn't deserve to live after doing that.

We could try stoning him, I suppose. Engage in some Old Testament justice to get the juices flowing.

Responsibility for one's actions is a dying art.

.... in this feminist era.

Yes, David, I am sure a 12 year old enjoys being married to an 80 year old man.

Probably more so than a 19 year-old dying in a battle field or down in a mine.

Never mind........the bottom line is, if becoming enlightened means being like you lot, I will pass. So would a large percentage of the population I am guessing.

No doubt. This forum is designed to scare off people just as much as it is designed to attract them.

-

[pointexter]

I want to hear how you, being a bloke, managed to attain this understanding of what occurs in a woman's mind.

...

It's funny that you should...
Do you remember...
...his "mini-me".
...you remind me of.
...little guy who struts around like...
...giving himself airs...

Pop psychology.

It's all just empty parroting.

Or are you too afraid that if you

stopped

doing this, you'll quickly get found out?

indistinguishable from

psycho-babbling

trolling

[David Quinn]

Dan

The point of Evonne Cawley was that it was an achievement for her to win Wimbledon again. But, no, only men have the right to achieve stuff in sport etc

That's not much of a point, and barely relevant to anything David has said. Every person who wins in sport achieves something. Personally I think tennis is a bad choice of sport for David's point. The main difference between male and female tennis is power rather than strategy or finesse, much like in golf. And frankly, much of the strategy and finesse in male tennis is driven by the simple need to overcome that power.

Male tennis is far more powerful, but it also displays a far larger amount of tactical intelligence and finesse. Roger Federer, a master of strategy and finesse, and physically not all that powerful, has been the dominant player for some years now. The same with golf. Tiger Woods has flair and finesse by the bucketload, far more so than the plodding, robotic nature of the top female golfers.

It is like watching the difference between 3-dimensional sport and 1-dimensional sport.

-

[Pam Seeback]

This thread is a testament to the repetitious conditioning of the human intellect to opine, assume, project and pretend that what it spews forth with regards to any subjective human belief has anything whatsoever to do with truth.

There can be no knowledge or wisdom of the infinite as long as one is clinging to their attachments to the finite. All discussions of this vs. that (in this case, male consciousness vs. female consciousness) are just such demonstrations of human intellectual ignorance, of attachments and prejudices that hinder man's comprehension of his transcendent, whole, complete, perfect and pure (infinite) nature.

There is but one way to be expanded into becoming aware of the nature of the Infinity of Oneself, and that is by purging oneself of any and all clinging to finite, subjective-objective beliefs. Does the intellect of pride and puffery like to hear that it must die so that the Pure Awareness of man can be expanded within his consciousness? Not on a bet.

[David Quinn]

David,

l cannot say if

this is

a function of false linking up

thoughts bouncing around an empty echo chamber

l can not know whats happening here

l cannot tell if there is consistent linking

repeating

dress up facades of falsehood

Self thrives on ridicule.

only feeds it.

All dead in a sense.

-

Taken from this recent missive of yours, (a good post, by the way). :)

[David Quinn]

There can be no knowledge or wisdom of the infinite as long as one is clinging to their attachments to the finite. All discussions of this vs. that (in this case, male consciousness vs. female consciousness) are just such demonstrations of human intellectual ignorance, of attachments and prejudices that hinder man's comprehension of his transcendent, whole, complete, perfect and pure (infinite) nature.

The trouble is, you're doing the same thing. You're operating with dichotomies as well - e.g. "discussing this vs. that".

For example, your paragraph above can easily be reworded as:

There can be no knowledge or wisdom of the infinite as long as one is clinging to their attachments to the finite. All discussions of this vs. that (in this case, prejudiced consciousness vs. unprejudiced consciousness) are just such demonstrations of human intellectual ignorance, of attachments and prejudices that hinder man's comprehension of his transcendent, whole, complete, perfect and pure (infinite) nature.

Your basic message seems to be, "No one should be allowed to utilize dichotomies, except me."

-