Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy

[Carmel]

Diebert:
I like the direction of this thought. But what if the "genius "reflects to some relevant extend the infinite and serves this way as an attractor to all that's constant, universal, unifying and timeless in relation to humanity? It doesn't matter then if they've ceased to be "real men" or are in the end projections. Perhaps man serves merely as ideal too, just the opposite ideal as woman leads to.

Carmel:
Ideal genius, in the form of Jesus and Buddha, is a blending of both the feminine and masculine ideals...compassion and wisdom. The Middle Way. They are both genders and neither gender. So, yes, they can and do serve as a "unifying" constant "in relation to humanity".

Diebert:
However, ideals do not function very well with a list of qualifiers attached, since they will not provide the same catapult type of dynamics to the masculine aspiration. In other words: without the highest as concrete, the real ideal, mediocrity soon arises because of the way human nature goes about these things. One exercise could be to imagine where humanity would have been without the highest aspirations toward a future which was unimaginable, yet still was being imagined.

Carmel:
...yet, you seem to be utilizing the qualifier that ideals should adhere strictly to the "masculine aspiration", placing the feminine ideal in opposition to the masc. ideal. It's a divisive concept, rather than a unifying one...and thus my criticism of religion. Too often, it is the case, that religion divides people, rather than unites them.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ideal genius, in the form of Jesus and Buddha, is a blending of both the feminine and masculine ideals...compassion and wisdom. The Middle Way. They are both genders and neither gender. So, yes, they can and do serve as a "unifying" constant "in relation to humanity".

That would be like blending future and past to create a present. I'm not sure you realize what you're saying! And to put "compassion" as feminine ideal is tricky as you very well know this is not how the feminine is defined around here. It doesn't matter though, compassion is a natural outcropping of wisdom. Again, there's nothing to blend as they are based on the same realization of an underlying nature.

...yet, you seem to be utilizing the qualifier that ideals should adhere strictly to the "masculine aspiration", placing the feminine ideal in opposition to the masc. ideal. It's a divisive concept, rather than a unifying one...and thus my criticism of religion. Too often, it is the case, that religion divides people, rather than unites them.

Unifying is not blending. Perhaps you've baked too many cakes! :-) Unification is always in opposition to but not annihilating division. Like the past doesn't battle the future. And when you'd remove its opposition, unification seizes to be unification, it removes the distinction. The type of unity you're suggesting is actually a destructive, a nihilistic one. Some would say the typical feminine version which has pervaded so much discourse these days.

[Carmel]

Diebert:
That would be like blending future and past to create a presence. I'm not sure you realize what you're saying!

Carmel:
This could use some fleshing out. What do you mean by this?

Diebert:
And to put "compassion" as feminine ideal is tricky as you very well know this is not how the feminine is defined around here.

Carmel:
yes, yes, I know. The arbitrary reassigning of gender characteristics to suit an agenda. I don't buy it. never did, never will.

Diebert:
It doesn't matter though, compassion is a natural outcropping of wisdom.

Carmel:
No, it doesn't matter whether compassion is labelled masc or fem....never did, never will...

Compassion and wisdom work in an integral manner. I wouldn't necessarily say that one is an outcropping of the other...

Diebert:
Again, there's nothing to blend as they are based on the same realization of an underlying nature.

Carmel:
yes, and what is that underlying nature? To say that it is anything other than: to exist, is to project our own subjective value judgements onto it. We can't say with any certainy that its nature is specifically masc. or fem., vengeful, loving or even apathetic.

Diebert:
Unifying is not blending. Perhaps you've baked too many cakes! :-)

Carmel:
Perhaps, you're sitting on one as we speak(squish!) and the frosting in your ass crack is interfering with your cognitive processes! :-)

Diebert:
Unification is always in opposition to but not annihilating division. Like the past doesn't battle the future. And when you'd remove its opposition, unification seizes to be unification, it removes the distinction. The type of unity you're suggesting is actually a destructive, a nihilistic one. Some would say the typical feminine version which has pervaded so much discourse these days.

Carmel:
The opposition isn't "removed". There is a constant and natural interplay between the "oppositional" forces or ideals. One ideal can't exist without the other, There's nothing nihilistic about it.

...and yes, these ideals can merge and blend with one another, but it requires a certain sort of mental flexibility to understand what I mean. Once you get the frosting out of your ass and think about it for awhile, you'll see what I mean. :)

[David Quinn]

Kelly: They are, by and large, animalistic and like animals,

Carmel: like dogs?

Kelly:Yes, if you like.

Carmel: No, it was a question, not a statement. And though all people have both an animal and spiritual aspect to their nature, I don't think referring to human beings of either gender as dogs is particuarly useful.

Just saw this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, entitled It's Reigning Cats and Dogs. Some of the more interesting bits:

Most Australian pet owners say their animals are more loving and dependable than their partners - and they are happy to lavish money on their pets in return, a survey has found.

Television vet Chris Brown said pets were playing bigger roles in Australian family life. ''We are relying more on pets to fulfil a role in our lives,'' said Dr Brown, who yesterday hosted the annual Pet Day Fair at the Sydney University Veterinary Teaching Hospital. ''As we are more stressed, pets can often become more dependable company for a short period of time when we are working harder and have less time.''

The survey of 7000 Australian pet owners by pet food brand Optimum found 80 per cent believed their animals were more affectionate than their partners while 70 per cent believed their pets were more dependable. About half of the people surveyed occasionally cooked a ''special meal'' such as salmon rissoles, Irish stew and shredded pan-fried chicken breast for their pet.

One of Dr Brown's clients, Marie, lives in Sydney's eastern suburbs, has a four-poster bed, her own Twitter account, a variety of matching outfits and fussy food habits. But there's something that sets her apart from eastern suburbs girls - she is an extremely spoilt Pomeranian dog. ''Pets are now considered a legitimate member of the family, where people are dressing their pets like humans, giving them a four-poster bed and going to cafes,'' Dr Brown said.

In the nine years he has practised in Bondi, Dr Brown has seen a huge difference in the expectations owners place on their pets and what they spend their money on.

''Suddenly pets are becoming little people with human names,'' he said. ''Pets that used to be seen as little more than a consumer of kitchen scraps have somehow climbed the ladder of importance and are now valuable contributors to the emotional harmony of a home.''

But he warned that the increasingly intimate relationship between owners and their pets can't be taken lightly but can have grave consequences if taken too seriously.

''People need to be realistic with their pets. They can't treat a pet like a human and then put it outside during the day - this can lead to the pet having separation anxiety and a real loss of identity.''

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: "That would be like blending future and past to create a presence."

This could use some fleshing out. What do you mean by this?

In some sense the past and the future appear as opposites but their nature is completely different. There's no meaningful way to "blend" them into some middle way where the roads meet. It's similar with a masculine and feminine ideal in the sense I'm talking about them.

yes, yes, I know. The arbitrary reassigning of gender characteristics to suit an agenda. I don't buy it. never did, never will.

That's fine but be beware before using it to argue for a necessary blending of masculine and feminine ideals. You are not talking only with yourself!

the frosting in your ass crack is interfering with your cognitive processes! :-)

It's clear where your mind tends to go!

There is a constant and natural interplay between the "oppositional" forces or ideals. One ideal can't exist without the other - these ideals can merge and blend with one another

What do you think: can wisdom exist without ignorance (avidya)?

[David Quinn]

David:
It's not really an ideal, perhaps my terminology is a bit confusing here. It's more like a giant gravitational attractor that sucks women down into it, and men along with them. It only assumes the form of an ideal when we depict this attractor in the abstract.

Carmel:
Yes, ideals are only true in the abstract, but this applies to any ideal: the ideal man, the ideal relationship, the ideal family, even, or most especially the ideal genius...

Taking the last example, you often use Jesus and Buddha as examples of genius, but I've not seen it acknowledged that, in essence, they've become idealized, mythological figures. Whether they actually existed or not is irrelevant. The masses project onto them their ideals to such a high degree that they've ceased being real men. The reality of them is lost forever. So, in that sense they are really only a collective projection of genius, not individual genius personified. Whether or not they were genius in actuality, is highly questionable. They, like any ideal, also serve as an "attractor" that people get sucked into...hence the inanity of religion.

Well, we've gone right off on a tangent here, and you have seemed to have mangled about half-a-dozen different issues into the one paragraph, such that I have no idea where to start responding to it. I think I'll just do a quick fly-by-night response: Yes, it's acknowledged - and indeed deliberately used because of it.

David:
What would you say if you saw a person constantly object to, say, the "one-sided" way the Christian religion is depicted here?

Carmel:
I'd say they are objecting to the "one-sided" way the Christian religion is depicted here.
A=A

Very cute. I would say that such a person has little interest in the tremendous reality the "one-sidedness" is pointing to, and instead is far more concerned about protecting the reputation of something that he (or she) is deeply attached to.

The educational system hasn't changed since I was in high school. They use the same methods today that they did then. The only difference now, is that women are outperforming men and some people are desperate for an excuse to explain this.

I don't know about America, but here in Australia things have changed quite a bit. For example, the shift of importance away from exams at the end of the year to continual week-by-week assessments, the almost complete disappearance of male teachers in primary schools, and an overall culture of political correctness and a devaluing of competitiveness. In effect, primary schools nowadays have a strong feminine atmosphere, which has the effect of putting many males off education altogether, so that by the time they reach high school they are far behind in their learning and lacking the enthusiasm to correct it.

-

[Kelly Jones]

But he warned that the increasingly intimate relationship between owners and their pets can't be taken lightly but can have grave consequences if taken too seriously.

''People need to be realistic with their pets. They can't treat a pet like a human and then put it outside during the day - this can lead to the pet having separation anxiety and a real loss of identity.''

Interesting article.

I'm minding my father's place for a while, and part of that chore is baby-sitting the maltese terrier. According to Wikipedia,

Temperament
Maltese are bred to be cuddly companion dogs, and thrive on love and attention. They are extremely lively and playful, and even as a Maltese ages, his or her energy level and playful demeanor remain fairly constant. Some Maltese may occasionally be snappish with smaller children and should be supervised when playing, although socializing them at a young age will reduce this habit. The Maltese is very active within a house, and, preferring enclosed spaces, does very well with small yards. For this reason, the breed also fares well in apartments and townhouses, and is a prized pet of urban dwellers. Maltese also suffer from separation anxiety, so potential owners should be cognizant of this behavior.

An Australia-wide (not including Tasmania) research project carried out in conjunction with RSPCA found owners likely to dump their Maltese terriers, citing the tendency of Maltese to bark constantly. This breed is Australia's most dumped dog.

It's interesting that barking is defensive, territorial behaviour, which is related to anxiety. It's like the dog has to shout frequently to make affirmations of its existence, and to keep the threatening world (coming via the smells, probably) at bay. Related to this is how nervous people with scattered thoughts talk to themselves, to remind themselves of what they are doing. Often the elderly, but often women, do this: such as when they're shopping, or just around the home. You'll hear them actually talking to themselves to get control of their experiences and consciousness, reminding themselves of what they're doing, asking themselves what they're up to next, and affirming themselves. There's anxiety in that as well.

So people aren't much different from dogs, and the projection of their self-concepts onto pets is probably another way of trying to strengthen egos. It's always interesting to see what kind of dog a person goes for.


.

[Kelly Jones]

K: They are, by and large, animalistic and like animals,

Carmel: like dogs?

Kelly:Yes, if you like.

Carmel: No, it was a question, not a statement. And though all people have both an animal and spiritual aspect to their nature, I don't think referring to human beings of either gender as dogs is particuarly useful.

A=A. Men are men. Women are women.

Dogs have been evolving as domesticated creatures, to fulfil human needs like companionship, for centuries. The Maltese, for instance, was called the "Ancient Roman Lady's Dog". So it's inevitable that humans will have dog-like attributes, and vice versa. Video.

I visited a fellow this week, and he was running late, because he'd just taken his dog to the hairdresser's. Dogs, more than any other animal, get treated like humans. This has to be because humans are like dogs, because humans see close similarities between themselves and dogs.

Their isn't enough evidence presented in the video to back up the claims. For example, I asked you how many chemistry depts are being shut down as a result of chemistry classes being "dumbed down". How prevalent is this problem? You never answered this question. There are two large Universities in my city. They both have chemistry depts.

There's a lot of information about it in the U.K. It seems to be that the universities can't afford to run chemistry departments, because they can't get enough financial sponsorship from chemistry-related employers. If the chemistry graduates are brilliant, innovative, and productive, this wouldn't happen. So dumbing-down chemistry classes would have that effect. But enrolment, or even students interested in chemistry, is decreasing.

Article about Australian science enrolment trends.

"Chemists fear that there could be as few as six university chemistry departments left in 10 years' time." From UK article in the Guardian

"Although the closure of chemistry departments is confined to the UK, the trend is disturbing to chemists worldwide and seems unlikely to halt. If the plan to close the department goes forward, as seems likely, Sussex will join Exeter, Kings College London, Queen Mary's London and Dundee in disposing of pure chemistry." From UK article in Nature journal

This thesis, written by a devout Christian, was submitted to Australia's Curtin University, suggesting alterations in the teaching style, away from lectures and towards coursework. Such an approach favours women, who tend to need a lot more support than men. Why do they need support? Why does anyone need support? Because they're struggling on their own. They personally lack the skills to understand something by themselves.

I noticed the difference between my two degrees. At Sydney University, the degree was largely about reading, lectures, and examinations. At University of New South Wales, there were piles of regular assessments and tutorials, few lectures, and virtually no examinations.

Clearly, there is a shift away from pure knowledge, as in pure mathematics and pure chemistry, to applied studies, and employment-related fields.

Students who have a real interest and understanding of the subject do best within the freedom of the examination structure. They don't need baby-sitting, or to keep reassuring the teachers that they understand. But those students who don't really give a damn, and don't understand the concepts, have to be watched and tested to work out whether they're "getting it". And the problem is, from a financial perspective, a university wants lots of students, and therefore will be stuck with the limitations of a mediocre majority who need baby-sitting. And so we get the result that the examination structure is used as guide for rote-learrning only, rather than as a test of deeper understanding. And, consequently, the system has to change towards frequent little tests.

From this paper from "New England Complex Systems Institute":
"From a complex systems perspective, for example, we might consider the role of high-stakes standardized testing and assessment schemes in the present educational system as imposing an artificial fitness landscape that pulls the system toward behaviors that maximize test results rather than deep conceptual understanding (unless, of course, these are the same)."

It also doesn't explain why men aren't entering science depts, including why "mediocre" men aren't enrolling in chemistry/science. Are these men entering the "easier" fields of study as well(the "soft" sciences, psychology etc)? Science is still a male dominated field. If science depts. are actually shutting down(proof pending), it's not because women aren't entering them, it's because men aren't.

If you are going to pay thousands for a degree, you aren't going to pay for something trivial that doesn't challenge you. And, if you can see that schooling is mostly getting ticks and pats on the head for following the rules blindly, rather than real learning, you aren't going to be interested in school in the first place.

Just as an illustration in how the sexes are different: A grandfather was taking his grandkids on an outing on the train yesterday, and the kids started to be hyperactive and silly. He started to explain why it was important to be "good kids", and what good kids did. It was a pretty dumb explanation. He said that being silly would get them into trouble with the police, and that good kids are on their best behaviour because the police might catch them. The little girl fell right into step, echoing his views. The little boy was silent and distrustful. That's basically how it goes in the schooling system. The girls fall into step with simplistic, lazy programming, and the boys see the loopholes and limitations --- and leave.

The lack of evidence in the video makes it come across as sensationalistic, a propaganda piece. It preys on men's fears and insecurities, men who are afraid of cultural change.

Just type in "chemistry department closure" in Google.

Of course, standards are set to the average and not genius. It's always been that way. What specifically, is the complaint? What are these "new trendy" ideas of which you speak? The educational system hasn't changed since I was in high school. They use the same methods today that they did then. The only difference now, is that women are outperforming men and some people are desperate for an excuse to explain this.

Well, maybe you should research what's happening in your country.

This is an interesting little snippet from Barack Obama in a CNN article:
" "Knowing colors, knowing shapes ... knowing how to sit still. You gotta learn that, especially when you're a boy," he said smiling." From CNN. Compare that to Leonard Sax's statement, "...Teachers at an all-boys elementary school in Chicago told me last month that the performance of their boys improved "500 percent" after teachers removed the chairs from the classroom. "Young boys just learn better when they stand up. When they sit down, their brains shut off," one teacher told me."

Kelly: Standardised is a meaningless term really. Objective doesn't make much sense, because particular people set the standards. If those people don't like certain viewpoints, or want to please others by promoting certain ideas, then they'll set the standards accordingly.

Carmel: ...more vague assertions. What specific policies are you referring to?

Well, one popular viewpoint is postmodernism, that sees everyone as having equally valid perspectives. If someone is left out, if a child is "left behind", there is a moral outcry, even if the person is simply not as intelligent as another. Another popular viewpoint is that boys ought to tame their wild, independent, rebellious characteristics and tame themselves to become good citizens "like girls": obedient, tame, passive, dutiful. Like the little girl, falling into step with the grandfather's lazy explanation of what a "good kid" is.

Kelly: It's just like politics. If a politician is up for election, they'll change their colours to suit the majority. If feminist ideas are trendy and dominant, then the policy makers will be afraid to disagree, because they'll not be re-elected or employed.

Carmel: So, Bush Jr. was catering to the feminists with his educational policies for national minimum standards in education? ...hmm, maybe he's not such a (ahem)dog afterall...

Did he get re-elected?


.

[Blair]

As much as I like Kelly Jones, for her stance, it's always amusing to see how much she cares about other peoples affairs.

[Kelly Jones]

I see others as myself.


.

[Blair]

Mapped out (on the fabric of Totality within space and time) , that's a violation of A=A.

[Anders Schlander]

Nice points there about the school system. Me and my male maths teacher used to talk a bit about these things actually. It's interesting to see just how little room there is for male teachers these days. You have to be so remarkably politically correct, and well, people's spirits are dying. It's not going to change before we can stop pretending everybody has equal value just by being a member of homo sapiens, I intuitively knew for a long time that everything was being made 'easier', I knew video games were always being made more easy to use and such, so I saw how that related to everything else; technology, phones, 'lazy-man solutions', those things that are make life more comfortable.... then I realized, all this work to make things easier... who was it really aimed at? At first, I thought, well, obviously the dumb kids, but now, I've changed my views.


Now, what can you do to make video games more popular? Why change them to become easier? clearly boys always love video games, so clearly that was not the problem, unless boys were becoming too stupid to play them. Most likely it was dumbed down and made easier so every every girl and child could play it.

Previous MMO's such as Dark age of Camelot (for reference) were male-dominated tenfold compared to the World of Warcraft, the very popular mass multi-player on-line game, and it was very very difficult. It was not a kid game as WoW now is in many aspects, while I played DaOC first when I was 11, with help from my brother, almost nobody would ever do that, but any five year old can play a bit of WoW now(albeit not the very competitive areas of the game). This evolution of 'dumbing down' , I figure, is largely because women have been commercialized in the western world. (Yes, I hinted at women being dumb, but I'd rather say that they lack the spirit of overcoming something difficult). Note, it is not just video games, everything is being made easier to help women, because they are paying costumers, so it is really the dumbing down of everything, the cloaking of actual hardship, of trial and error, of failure and majestic success, of epic tales of great individuals, etc, because it is the cloaking of men, the cloaking of individuality and idealism.

An observation: People do seem very unwilling to take responsibility for the effects of their life, they do not want to think of themselves as causes for the future much.

Is this related to women?, well, just as with aspects of commercialization, the feminine mentality is only becoming more widespread in people's minds in general, and to say which came first, the feminine mentality or the feminine commercialization, well, that is hard to say, my guess is they came roughly at the same time.


What has made life so meaningless?

I don't know, but the evidence that it has is clear. For 20 years I've seen more and more people driven into mass-pointlessness, and the best evidence I can think of is the evolution of entertainment.

There has been a general carelessness while women's desires have had free reign, and men have slowly forgotten the plot, as if there sort of was a plot, yet it was not quite clear, so in an accident he let it sink to the bottom of the lake, undoing the progress he had made to find it in the first place. It was as if by luck that men had been fortunate enough to have made such a wonderful world, but failing to now realize what he did to get to where he now was, he let it slip through his fingers. The relationship to women and the nature of woman was probably the biggest mental block, and the biggest detail that he remains oblivious of to this day, and is thus hurting the future of the planet.

The nature of women is hard to understand if you don't wish to, because it means facing your own impermanence, the woman in man is really his ego, and the woman in man does not wish to reveal woman's real nature, the real nature of ones idea of self. It is much preferred to keep silent, because the dream of the escape of suffering, the goddess that offers peace, the ego simply loves it, hence, usually, the ego in man takes the form of a woman very easily, because the dream of her seems strongest. When somebody punches your girlfriend, he is punching your ego. alternatively, the ego in man can take the form of a pet, or an achievement, or anything really.

edit: improved the post a couple times, i thought it would make it much better to read

[Anders Schlander]

I don't know about America, but here in Australia things have changed quite a bit. For example, the shift of importance away from exams at the end of the year to continual week-by-week assessments, the almost complete disappearance of male teachers in primary schools, and an overall culture of political correctness and a devaluing of competitiveness. In effect, primary schools nowadays have a strong feminine atmosphere, which has the effect of putting many males off education altogether, so that by the time they reach high school they are far behind in their learning and lacking the enthusiasm to correct it.

I remember when I was just about to start in school, I was competing with myself to solve maths equations and the like, but when I started school at age 6, it didn't match up to learning with my dad and competing etc. What you're saying is quite true.

I simply can't understand why my country doesn't allow single-gender schools or classes. Who will admit the sexes have no differences? nobody, who will say they have equal value? many. But im sure people can agree females and males are different, so I wonder why there are not schools designed to be best for males?


David, you went to an all-boys school didn't you? did you guys tend to want to be active/competitive, rather than dozing off every class? my guess is that you would.

in conventional schools the girls are writing notes and talking to each other whilst following everything the teacher says. Instead boys are messing around with each other unless their head is faced into the desk out of boredom or what not. I'd like the policy on education and sexes to change as it would be a step in the right direction not to downplay the value that males usually possess, and to give boys the best possible environment would only help make it even more obvious, so if only it would initially happen.


@ the chemistry apartments, the obvious reason is that men are poorly educated, and men are the ones that care for chemistry. Sad, but true, not for the UK only, but for Denmark as well.

[Kelly Jones]

Schooling systems are very similar to the way political parties are created these days: managerial class versus labour class. Soaring personal ambitions outside "socially useful employment" are made to look old-fashioned and selfish. The kind of competitive drive that completely discards the coursework, and goes exploring independently, is made to seem mentally ill - you're crazy if you go it alone, and also fit-for-nothing.


.

[cousinbasil]

I simply can't understand why my country doesn't allow single-gender schools or classes. Who will admit the sexes have no differences? nobody, who will say they have equal value? many. But im sure people can agree females and males are different, so I wonder why there are not schools designed to be best for males?

I went to an all-male high school here in the USA but it has since gone coed. Here, private schools can be for one sex or the other, but by law cannot receive public funding unless coed. It wasn't until college that I had to master the art of taking notes in class while suffering a painful boner because the girl in the seat in front of me was exuding enough pheremones to wake the dead.

Another not uncommon symptom of the politically correct forced feminisation of higher education is the female wrestler. Since many high schools cannot afford to support female wrestling, if a girl wants to join the boys' team, she is often allowed.

[Carmel]

Diebert:
In some sense the past and the future appear as opposites but their nature is completely different. There's no meaningful way to "blend" them into some middle way where the roads meet. It's similar with a masculine and feminine ideal in the sense I'm talking about them.

Carmel:
Time. I'm not so sure that is a good example. There are various competing theories about the nature of time. Some say it is entirely a man made construct, an illusion the brain relies upon to organize our lives, but that's another topic...

Diebert:
That's fine but be beware before using it to argue for a necessary blending of masculine and feminine ideals. You are not talking only with yourself!

Carmel:
Humanity has been using an entirely different definitions of masculine and feminine ideals since the beginning of mankind. Compassion is considered a feminine ideal throughout the world and the merging..or balancing, if you prefer, of the best of both ideals(yin-yang) is a prevalent theme throughout eastern religion. It's along these lines that I use the terms feminine and masculine ideal.

C:
the frosting in your ass crack is interfering with your cognitive processes! :-) [/quote
D: It's clear where your mind tends to go!

Carmel:
It's true.
Your ass crack is hypnotic. :-|

Diebert:
What do you think: can wisdom exist without ignorance (avidya)?

Carmel:
No, not within a human being. All people are ignorant, to varying degrees. To say otherwise would imply omniscience.

[Carmel]

Carmel:
Yes, ideals are only true in the abstract, but this applies to any ideal: the ideal man, the ideal relationship, the ideal family, even, or most especially the ideal genius...

Taking the last example, you often use Jesus and Buddha as examples of genius, but I've not seen it acknowledged that, in essence, they've become idealized, mythological figures. Whether they actually existed or not is irrelevant. The masses project onto them their ideals to such a high degree that they've ceased being real men. The reality of them is lost forever. So, in that sense they are really only a collective projection of genius, not individual genius personified. Whether or not they were genius in actuality, is highly questionable. They, like any ideal, also serve as an "attractor" that people get sucked into...hence the inanity of religion. [/quote]

David:
Well, we've gone right off on a tangent here, and you have seemed to have mangled about half-a-dozen different issues into the one paragraph, such that I have no idea where to start responding to it. I think I'll just do a quick fly-by-night response: Yes, it's acknowledged - and indeed deliberately used because of it.

Carmel:
a tangent? yes, perhaps I should be searching the net for dog breeds, instead?

Anyway, It's not so much of a tangent, in the sense that what I said above applies to any ideal.(sans the "inanity of religion" comment) The point is that viewing anything through strictly one mode, idealism, in this case, would never provide a complete picture of man, woman, genius. To do so, is to set oneself up for delusion.

David:
Very cute. I would say that such a person has little interest in the tremendous reality the "one-sidedness" is pointing to, and instead is far more concerned about protecting the reputation of something that he (or she) is deeply attached to.

Carmel:
I can't believe you're still harping on this point, but nevertheless, I think you may have inadvertantly revealed a little of yourself here. It seems to me that you are the one who is deeply attached to your perverted views of "masculinity" and femininity".

David:
I don't know about America, but here in Australia things have changed quite a bit. For example, the shift of importance away from exams at the end of the year to continual week-by-week assessments, the almost complete disappearance of male teachers in primary schools, and an overall culture of political correctness and a devaluing of competitiveness. In effect, primary schools nowadays have a strong feminine atmosphere, which has the effect of putting many males off education altogether, so that by the time they reach high school they are far behind in their learning and lacking the enthusiasm to correct it.

Carmel:
If this really is a genuine problem and not simply an excuse for the failings of boys in education, then men have no choice, but to either change the system or adapt to it. I'd suggest they do both.

[jufa]

Everyone looks to a spot which they believe does not disfigure their point of view. No one takes that 360 degree turn and look to the whole of the system of mankind's thinking which has not only formed all the systems man lives by and the rules, regulations, and laws which not only govern, but influence, and has always influenced man's thinking of organizing for certain ages, but family units, and neighborhood behavior, county participation, state figuration, country disposition, and moral integrity of loality which, when look at from this 360 degree viewing, is the same everywhere. People are the same everywhere, so why is not everywhere the same?

Adaptation to cultral is not an issue. Education also is not the issue, neither is helping and caring in spots. And male and female mentality or learning is not the issue. The problem always begins with individuals who have branched off from caring about themselves, and thus, have forsaken themselves and have estranged themselves from the place within themselves that will not allow them to shuffle down the aisle of contempt, greed, lust, power, and I think ego, I think thoughts of betterment for me, with hope that my position can be used as a telescope for other to see of my selfishness disguised as compassion.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There are various competing theories about the nature of time.

There are various competing theories about the nature of the feminine too. But it doesn't matter for my comparison now does it? I didn't claim the masculine was the past and the feminine the future, even when it might seem that way at times. My point was that seeming opposites can have a completely different nature and blending or balancing acts become a category error: there's nothing to balance or mix.

Compassion is considered a feminine ideal throughout the world and the merging..or balancing, if you prefer, of the best of both ideals(yin-yang) is a prevalent theme throughout eastern religion. It's along these lines that I use the terms feminine and masculine ideal.

I don't think you can pull that trick: "compassion is considered". No way you can back that up apart from having a personal opinion on it. The only thing that's considered is a generally stronger emotional action-response with females, which basically adds up to empathy. And even empathy might not be gender specific, some researchers have suggested it to be a "longstanding cultural stereotype". Something women have a fine knack in responding to, as well. Which by the way opens up the possibility empathic behavior might not always be what it looks like, as one cannot easily measure if one actually senses or cares for another. Only outward responses to obvious clues in a monitored environment are measured.

What do you think: can wisdom exist without ignorance (avidya)?

No, not within a human being. All people are ignorant, to varying degrees. To say otherwise would imply omniscience.

Well, I did specify "avidya" which means ignorance of the "real nature of things". And wisdom in the context of this forum means essentially knowledge of the way, the nature of existence, which might provide some needed clarity to or freedom from whatever else that would come to mind.

So do you think one should strive to know something about existence but mixed in with some grave misidentification for good measure?

[David Quinn]

Carmel:
Yes, ideals are only true in the abstract, but this applies to any ideal: the ideal man, the ideal relationship, the ideal family, even, or most especially the ideal genius...

Taking the last example, you often use Jesus and Buddha as examples of genius, but I've not seen it acknowledged that, in essence, they've become idealized, mythological figures. Whether they actually existed or not is irrelevant. The masses project onto them their ideals to such a high degree that they've ceased being real men. The reality of them is lost forever. So, in that sense they are really only a collective projection of genius, not individual genius personified. Whether or not they were genius in actuality, is highly questionable. They, like any ideal, also serve as an "attractor" that people get sucked into...hence the inanity of religion.

David:
Well, we've gone right off on a tangent here, and you have seemed to have mangled about half-a-dozen different issues into the one paragraph, such that I have no idea where to start responding to it. I think I'll just do a quick fly-by-night response: Yes, it's acknowledged - and indeed deliberately used because of it.

Carmel:
a tangent? yes, perhaps I should be searching the net for dog breeds, instead?

Anyway, It's not so much of a tangent, in the sense that what I said above applies to any ideal.(sans the "inanity of religion" comment)

Even the ideal of sanity/rationality/individuality?

The point is that viewing anything through strictly one mode, idealism, in this case, would never provide a complete picture of man, woman, genius. To do so, is to set oneself up for delusion.

But of course. Such an obvious point. One that I'm sure most people here are well aware of. I love the way you disseminate the obvious as though it was secret, esoteric knowledge. :)

No, you're definitely stung, no doubt about it.

David:
Very cute. I would say that such a person has little interest in the tremendous reality the "one-sidedness" is pointing to, and instead is far more concerned about protecting the reputation of something that he (or she) is deeply attached to.

Carmel:
I can't believe you're still harping on this point, but nevertheless, I think you may have inadvertantly revealed a little of yourself here. It seems to me that you are the one who is deeply attached to your perverted views of "masculinity" and femininity".

It's just an analytical tool, nothing more. One of many that I use.

-

[Carmel]

C: Anyway, It's not so much of a tangent, in the sense that what I said above applies to any ideal.(sans the "inanity of religion" comment) [/quote]
D: Even the ideal of sanity/rationality/individuality?

Carmel:
Remember you said ideals are only true in the abstract? I agree and yes that applies to all ideals. There is no such thing as perfect sanity, rationality or individuality, not in the realm of "stinking, fallible" human beings., as you termed it.

David:
But of course. Such an obvious point. One that I'm sure most people here are well aware of. I love the way you disseminate the obvious as though it was secret, esoteric knowledge. :)

Carmel:
It happens here all the time. The philosophies espoused here are really quite simple, especially as expressed by some of your "followers"... yet when they state the obvious or even things that are blatantly misguided, I don't see you harping on them. funny that.

David:
No, you're definitely stung, no doubt about it.

Carmel:
no=no I'm really not but if serves some purpose for you to believe this, go for it. :)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm writing a poem about Diebert's ass crack and was wondering if I could borrow the phrase "gravitational attractor"?

[David Quinn]

You're a woman, you can do as you please. And a big thumbs up for raising the standards of the forum!

-

[Carmel]

When are you going to stop mutilating your barbie dolls, David?

Some of the attitudes you express really aren't befitting of a self proclaimed sage, in this and other regards. You aren't walking the walk...If you think I'm the only one who sees it, guess again...

[David Quinn]

When are you going to stop mutilating your barbie dolls, David?

Some of the attitudes you express really aren't befitting of a self proclaimed sage, in this and other regards. You aren't walking the walk...If you think I'm the only one who sees it, guess again...

Are there enlightened people around who can judge these things? If so, I want to meet them!

I may or may not be a fraud, but at least the issue is raised with me. Will anyone ever ask you, Carmel, whether you are really hitting the heights or not?

-

[Carmel]

David:
Are there enlightened people around who can judge these things? If so, I want to meet them!

Carmel:
Who's your judge, yourself...other people who you've deemed enlightened? I've already seen the circular nature of this argument, I'm not interested in riding on that broken ferris wheel.

David:
I may or may not be a fraud, but at least the issue is raised with me. Will anyone ever ask you, Carmel, whether you are really hitting the heights or not?

Carmel:
I've never claimed to be...

The difference is, young, easily influenced young boys/men buy into the misguided ideas you are selling them. It's not only a lie, but a malicious one, because it caters to their most basic insecurities and fears, not to mention their ego. I think some of the ideas here, can and do cause damage to young minds. I sincerely believe that it is perverse on many levels. This is not nor has it ever been about me being personally offended. I simply think it is wrong. wrong. wrong.

I think Dejavu said it best:

"What is misogyny if not misogyny?"