Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[SeekerOfWisdom]

That's because the illusion is both apparently consistent and convincing, you create rational explanations for what is happening, from desire, thought, to realization of that desire.

There are many of these false rationalizations our mind creates for how these things are occurring, one of the main one's being movement itself, you have a thought, a desire, and then believe that because you "moved" to where it is this has rationally explained your change in sensual experience.

You desire latina's, they surround you, clowns, your at the circus.

All these people are acting not well knowing it is their own thoughts and intentions creating their future dream-like experiences or projections, all thoughts and projections flowing as one and hence rippling the pond, effecting each "other".

All that has really happened, is you have had a thought, a desire, and then those thoughts have influenced your future illusory sensory experiences, which influence your thoughts, and so forth, not once here is there control of any kind found, no free will clearly, there is no "you" .

Pretty much, your smack bang in the middle of a dream or maybe "hallucination", things only exist so far as they are seen, although commonly people are caught in only particular manifestations and false knowledge (which is all of it) and trick themselves into believing that "this" is somehow "more" real than any other imaginative sense experience, and that's only because they are "here" now so they are being bias and falsely rationalizing what they have no knowledge about. So some kind of external corresponding physical place independent of consciousness is imagined, from which their experiences are sourced through the body which is believed to be the actual self, when in reality it's importance to you is: What happens when you "die" in an imaginative experience?

In reality the world is an illusion of consciousness very much like a dream, and the only thing stopping you from realizing this is thought. Your false knowledge and illusory thoughts which are not rational distract the mind from what is right in front of it, what exists only in what is seen. (Can you see without light? Apparently not, but you can run through the fields with your eyes closed, how do you know where you are going? Your form is not yours, it is only made up of a collection of fleeting sensations. The light, the experiences, the world, the dreams, they are coming from "you")

The Buddha said this, and this is not an argument from authority, it's a quote, and anyone that might say these quotes aren't clear or that they are being misconstrued is obviously a douche, because of how clear they are:

"Since the ignorant and simple-minded, not knowing that the world is only something seen of the mind itself, cling to the multitudinousness of external objects, cling to the notions of being and nonbeing, oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness, existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity, and think that they have a self-nature of their own, all of which rises from the discriminations of the mind and is perpetuated by habit-energy, and from which they are given over to false imagination. It is all like a mirage in which springs of water are seen as if they were real. They are thus imagined by animals who, made thirsty by the heat of the season, run after them. Animals, not knowing that the springs are an hallucination of their own minds, do not realise that there are no such springs."

The Buddha, and me through quoting, are essentially trying to "free your mind", to open it up to the realization that all this here exists "within" you, that it is only of the mind, and more importantly, that you are an eternal experiencer, that it doesn't effect you, the down's being nothing more than a bad experience, a bad dream, or: it's just a ride.

"On the contrary my teaching is based upon the recognition that the objective world, like a vision, is a manifestation of the mind itself"

"A wise man recognizing reality is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, and so he escapes the suffering.

The point is, the suffering, worries, illusions, all negativity of any kind, all past and future, constant thoughts and past associations, worries about latina's and losing money, everything, can be completely let go of.

Gone, not to return.Replaced by wakefulness and a clear view of what is really occurring in front of you, and when that happens, "everything will fall into place" - Lao Tzu.

It will literally just work out, perfectly, happily, do you know why? Because it's happening "within" and only delusional knowledge is clouding that from you, your influence on it goes further than you think, the same way your emotions and thoughts would influence what happens in a dream, fear manifests into monsters, lust manifests into girls, getting me? It's almost same, don't give it "more" reality because your "here" now, the choice of whether your life is completely empty and hence completely fulfilled is yours.

You'll still be able to do everything you do, you'll just never worry about it, act in the moment not with expectation, really and fully let go of thoughts of future and past, more specifically if they are in a negative light, the future is yours for the molding, and without worry it will go perfectly.

Now, for anyone reading, you can be completely ignorant and take this as nothing more then pseudo bullshit, or, you can do your own tests, observe to see if these "influences" on your sensual experience are more then you thought they were, and then watch as all the delusions fall away, and the eternity of "heaven" is realized, you will be experiencing forever, death is like sleeping, hate to break the good news to you so blatantly, ruins peoples plans and preoccupations :p

[Dennis Mahar]

The argument Alex is putting is as old as the hills.
Male domination of women.

[Kunga]

with a 5yo kid she's short on options.

And everything she does is for survival purposes....even more so with having a child !!!
He would be better off being with someone that is independant , his power & control will end when she's not getting what she wants (security). Her family will tell her what to do. His control is limited.
http://latin-wife.com/Foreign-Brides.asp

[Dennis Mahar]

Lets hope he sticks with the game plan.
She, being short on options with a 5yo kid 'needs' him.


We''ll just have to put up with his gloating concerning his prowess.

[Kunga]

"A wise man recognizing reality is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, and so he escapes the suffering.

A wise man wouldn't step into the street when a semi-truck is comming. :)
Hense, he would escape the suferring.

No ?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Tell me kunga, do you like getting hit by buses, even if you would still be experiencing after? Clearly not.

Still, the pain, the death, only illusions, the body is not you, the world only exists in sensation, those sensations are not a result of the body but instead make up the body.

[Kunga]

So do you think it's wise to have common sense ?
Or is it wiser to have uncommon sense ?

If all is illusion, then illusion is also illusion.
The wise know the difference between illusion & delusion.

Ask an Owl which he prefers....a fake (plastic)(illusion) worm or a real (live)(illusion) one.

Would you eat a rubber chicken ?

[Alex T. Jacob]

Seeker, your post was almost unintelligible to me. I just don't think in these terms. It looks like a very over the top indulgence in pseudo-spiritual abstraction. But I know this is the area you are working in. I just can't really comment on it. It seems a conversation much more suited to Jufa! It all seems like so much self-talk.
____________________________________

Kunga, Dennis: you make continued blunders, both in interpretation and general understanding. When you project your own content onto something/someone, you have thereby possessed the conversation and it becomes exclusively about you. It is understandable that you would jump to all these bizarre conclusions, but it is not good for you as conversationists or learners (about other's experience or other, different possibilities).

Kunga, you don't spell Colombia Columbia, and when you write so carelessly it makes you look unintelligent, and you are very, very wrong about Colombians generally. All Colombians, in my experience, show a great deal of intelligence and mental agility. Very impressively so. In fact, it is the cause of many downfalls! A great deal of sharpness without a solid ethical base.

As a matter of fact some aspects of poverty and struggle sharpen a whole group of mental skills, especially interpretive skills that have to be carried out in a flash. Upper class Colombians are not necessarily more intelligent but they are often better prepared academically. But they also show signs of losing an edge. Money tends to make people lazy and they rely on apparent accomplishment. I regularly have interactions with people who are 'lower middle class' (clase media baja) and even lower whose native intelligence and curiosity impresses me very much.

Even if a person is a 'dullard', as you so vulgarly put it, there are qualities in human beings that often outshine the 'smarts' you speak of. I find your ideas on the subject very narrow and they reveal, I think, your own limitations and perhaps lack of capacity to appreciate and understand people. And another thing: a woman can be, and many indeed are, very attractive physically, and very accomplished sensually (and in love-making), and what fucking right does your middle-class ass have to judge that? The world is far wider and far more complex than you seem aware and there are all sorts of ways of being in it.

While it is true that a purely sexually-based relationship will likely not endure, and most especially a North-South contrived 'marriage' (as in your link), a relationship that revolves around sensuality in all its different manifestations is not to be condemned out of hand. In fact, a pure and vital sexual bond between a man and a woman will often outlast a supposed 'intellectual' connection. On what basis and by what right do you feel you can preside over these issues? The use of the word 'desperate' in this context reveals, I think, a condemnable judgmentalism. Did I use any such terms to describe my friend?

And you are very wrong about Colombian women's taste in men. Generally speaking, Colombian men show a good deal of a certain form of passivity. I don't know quite how to express it. I call them 'gallinas'. They are cowardly and oddly submissive to the women in their environment. I think it is because the mother is so dominant in this culture and there is so much 'mother' in the culture. And I don't 'play the macho type'. If I 'play' any 'type' it is the 'intellectual type'.

You once said that you felt 'stupid' when you just blurt out shit without thinking. I can see why! ;-)

What I am talking about, and what y'all are hearing, is getting run through your own, bizarre, middle-class, pseudo-spiritual filters, and then you barf it back out. It is non-edible. I cannot make you see the erroneousness and arrogance of your assumptions, but I hope that you will at least try to examine them.

As to the Mail Order Brides. I would wager that 90% of those relationship fail or never get off the ground. It would be an interesting study and has likely been undertaken. In my view to know Latinos and Latinas you have to really participate in the culture and that means you have to become fluent in the language among other things. Latino culture and Anglo (N American, European) culture are very radically different. While it is true that Latinos and Latinas can, eventually, blend into Anglo culture, they remain Latino. Anglos generally speaking cannot ever really know Latinos unless they master the language and the culture to some degree.

Your characterizations of the woman I am describing are filled to the brim with your own racial type-casting, but it is all partial, prejudiced and incomplete.

Working with things as they actually are is very, very different from a starting point in unstudied abstractions. Still, the purpose of this threat is to examine 'Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy' from a man's perspective. And to do this requires a starting point in reality, not in your pet projections! What I find interesting is how politically correct tropes force their way in through every crack.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Illusion is everything, every experience and thought, delusion is thinking you have knowledge, common sense is knowing what limited knowledge you do have and navigating away from suffering, the plastic food thing is irrelevant.

Alex

It's the truth haha, you just haven't yet realized that everyone's experiences are as shallow, hollow and dream-like as yours, only thought gets in the way of this.

[Kunga]

Alex...I based everything I said (about Colombian Women) on what was said in that link about Colombian women !
Other than that, on what little you have revealed.
And I'm drinking too much wine.....

[Alex T. Jacob]

Seeker, to my eyes you are beginning to define a position---highly reductive and predictable---that shares commonality with Dennis's. I would suggest taking care. A little knowledge and experience can be very, very seductive. One builds a whole private world, uses one basic argument against *everyone*. Life in my view is infinitely wider. But I don't think you will have too much use for what I just said! Should we leave it at that?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Against? This is for not against, and I repeat it to people any one who displays they don't yet know their experiences arise from the mind and are subject to the mind, the recognition of this illusory existence is the end of all suffering and delusion, and sadly, it is as hard to accept and seemingly crazy or unintelligible as the fact that your consciousness is not a result of your body or brain and experience continues independent of them, it's relevant, the knowledge that experience is dream-like (Not with real effect on your ability to experience) and eternal ends all thoughts of future or past, all suffering. "The master is awake and he lives forever, the fool sleeps as if he were already dead"

Either way, this is still logical, get rid of perceived negativity, and it's gone.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex, quit deflecting.
it isn't filtered.

This is what you said in a nutshell.

girl in dire straits.
trickle small amounts of money into her hands and keep the bulk of the assets out of her reach.
Male in dominant position. power and control.
male gets sex and relationship in return.

Your logic is:
predatory World.
be the best predator.

[Alex T. Jacob]

It was expressed in my first post, Dennis, and elaborated in subsequent posts. To always *reduce* theses, to rescript them, and in that action to express and insist on the content of your own projections, is your chief activity on this forum. Unfortunately for you, unfortunately for the forum.

Kunga, I forgive you everything. You were drunk. What excuse do you suppose Dennis---and possibly Seeker---can offer? ;-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dunno Alex. There's this point being made both by yourself as by Dennis that this is about having created a certain dynamic between some male unassailable position of sovereignty in material, financial and psychological matters and at the other side a certain female opposite, in need of schooling, encouragement, comforts of a senior adviser, full of worries about the child and dependent on her mother and others to create some sense of security and joy. But isn't this a very uneven relationship nevertheless, perhaps covered up with noble sentiments as "beautiful soul" and innocence of her intent?

It's highly debatable if this is the type of sovereignty men should seek. The roles of caretaker, advisor or comforter are always tricky. Isn't the so-called unassailableness of a position not the very source of a power dynamic with an impossibility of an open and honest material exchange (or even the inability of mature exchange altogether).

This all raises still the question of why you would be in Latin America or Columbia in the first place. Is it like some Western males go to Thailand for? It often reads like the need to be involved in very personal types of power relations. Do you really think it's manly to handle this type of power? Personally I see more manhood in risk taking.

[brad walker]

Isn't the so-called unassailableness of a position not the very source of a power dynamic with an impossibility of an open and honest material exchange (or even the inability of mature exchange altogether).

I wonder what would happen in a forum focused around discussing universal truths, one where every participant represents unassailable positions.

[Kunga]

Alex...thank you.

I was highly emotional last night.
Now I am calm.
I still think intensions are everything.
I think your intensions are basically good/kindhearted.
You definately need to be smart about things.
When you fall in love, you can't think straight.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Is the so-called unassailableness of a position not the very source of a power dynamic with an impossibility of an open and honest material exchange (or even the inability of mature exchange altogether).

I wonder what would happen in a forum focused around discussing universal truths, one where every participant represents unassailable positions.

As long as people see each other's position as assailable, it might still get very busy. The real and meaningful exchange however is then happening between observer and the dialog. The forum writes itself! In the world of material representation it's easier to follow the giving and taking. And look what happens when the ability to return is blocked! The most vile acts unfolding.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Diebert:

I only spoke about a specific 'unassailability' in respect to the financial issue, and I cited an extreme case but not at all an uncommon case, that most certainly effects men of the so-called First World. In that example, one false move, one careless move, or thoughtless move, will lead directly to the State intervening and, as advocate for the woman, legally binding you financially. If this is the general circumstance---and I am not saying that it is 'wrong' that it is like that, it just *is*---I would imagine that men of those cultures would need to do a great deal of pre-thinking about what it all might mean for them. I would also imagine that many men simply opt out. I would imagine that this is your position and I assume you have no interest and 'liking' of women. You have never to my knowledge spoken about this so I cannot be sure. But these conversations, at least I think so, only become 'valid' when they cease being abstract.

In my own case, and for a whole group of reasons, I stopped 'dating' America women a long time ago. In my case this came about when I first left the US and went to Venezuela. I really did not understand it all, that is, my motivations, or how I was deciding things on an inner level without a full translation to the mental-conscious sphere, but I now have gone back over the trajectory of the life I lived and reexamined it. I began this process at the same time that I came to this forum and---(this is a sort of 'correction' or 'rephrasing' of previous rather aggressive positions taken against the forum's philosophy, against Quinnism, and against what I see as a neurotic 'pseudo-spirituality' that seems to me more about abandoning the field than engaging in the field (life, culture, creation, etc.)---I am now trying to work a little differently: by examining my own choices in the light of what I understand the motive of Genius Forum to be, but naturally run through my own lens, my own interpretive system, my own individuality. You and I, at least I thought so, made at least a tacit agreement to try to approach differences of opinion differently, so I hope that we can do that.

What happened in Venezuela for me was that I experienced---not mentally but physically and if you will 'spiritually'---a radical stepping-out of a structured system (of thinking, seeing, acting, interpreting). Our cultures are highly regimented and the effect of this regimentation is extreme in our own persons. But I am not putting a value judgment on it one way or the other. In fact, what it all seems to hinge in is a lack of Law. In social systems where the Law has not penetrated and regimented everything there is a unique and chaotic sort of lawlessness, or chaos, but certainly (in a more positive sense) an anarchy (which would be a literal use of the word: an-archy). What I discovered is that I liked it so much, and grew into it and with it, that it became a part of me. You asked why I live in Colombia but the answer will not satisfy you, but then in truth the Answer we will give about any motivation of ours will amount to a sort of lie: Isn't that one main 'truth' of modernity? The Freudian *fact* that we don't really know precisely what motivates us? Or, we know some parts of it? Or our 'conscious attitude' is not the real truth about us? In any case, there were sorts of freedom (or 'freedom' if you wish) that I experienced that simply got into my blood and into my dreams. And also: I dreamed it all, this exodus if you will, from the regimentation of US culture to something different, back in a series of (literal) dreams when I was still in my teens. The trajectory of my life, I see now, has been the work of fulfilling that, making it happen. And now I live it. Does that satisfy you as an 'answer'? (I always tend to think that with you, as with Dennis, David and so many others here, that what is most important to you is you Insistence of Interpretation; the force of your will in declaring your interpretation. I think this is a very bad tactic. However, I am also quite aware indeed of the temptation of the freely-offered psychological analysis! So I cannot complain...)

You latch on, as does Dennis, to the wrong things! Is it permissible to re-edit? Is it possible to back-track? I described a person I know as a 'beautiful soul' which is a poetic way of saying a warm, decent, upstanding sort.

My argument is that it is exactly the 'female opposite' that is the field of man's labor, in one way or another, now and always! It is a reversal on some level of a common feminist trope: that men 'plow' (excuse the crude pun) their women just as they plow the land. But this IS exactly the view that I am taking. It DOES represent a 'fundamental truth'. Everything that I am saying, though I am not recommending any universal plan for man but am simply talking about possibilities, hinges on this predicate. I see this as the core predicate of Quinn's position, but instead of engaging with reality, and in fact he cannot 'engage' it because, like a kept woman and a ward of the State, he has opted out of the engagement I am speaking about, which is always problematic, difficult, ambiguous. I assume that your own position is analogous: a comfortable, salaried position within a liberal Dutch socialist culture. In comparison my choices and my situation is, at least ostensibly, radical, extremist.

Also: I am not setting up my present choices as some sort of paradigm to be followed. True, I have always taken issue with the femininity and cowardliness of Quinn's position, which leads to a form of lived hypocrisy. But what I am attempting to explore, for my own reasons, is a notion I have mentioned a few times. In the 2nd line of Hexagram No. 4 Youghtful Folly or Inexperience, is reads:

• To bear with fools in kindliness brings good fortune.
  To know how to take women
  Brings good fortune.
  The son is capable of taking charge of the household.
  
  These lines picture a man who has no external power, but who has enough strength of mind to hear his burden of responsibility. he has the inner superiority and strength that enable him to tolerate with kindliness the shortcomings of human folly. The same attitude is owed to women as the weaker sex. One must understand them and give them recognition in a spirit of chivalrous consideration. Only this combination of inner strength with outer reserve enables one to take on the responsibility of directing a larger social body with real success.

When I first started reading here, forced to listen to inexperienced, sexless boys who to all appearances still lived in their parent's homes and were engaging in far-reaching 'philosophical' discourse on matters they had almost NO practical experience with (sorry, that was grandstanding! I am incorrigible!), I kept thinking back to the meaning in this Chinese wisdom, and to the practical Chinese approach generally. 'To know how to take women' is a very powerful statement. And I don't care what the women say, or what feminism says. A woman is ALWAYS a being that a man 'takes'. You have to achieve a woman, you have to claim a woman, and you have to win a woman. And you do this from an internal, and an external, position of your own power. This is essentially my point.

Now, one can throw up one's hands and bemoan this and all the other attendant truths that stem from it. Yes, you can do that. That is in essence what the Quinnean position is, in my view. It is not all that it is but it is significantly what it is. It is a cowardly position. Or, one might describe it as a retreat from the field to gain strength and awareness for eventual reengagement. That would be valid. But as you know I define a position of engagement in the world, and valuation of Life. So with this, at least, you have a clarification of my stand.

It's highly debatable if this is the type of sovereignty men should seek. The roles of caretaker, advisor or comforter are always tricky. Isn't the so-called unassailableness of a position not the very source of a power dynamic with an impossibility of an open and honest material exchange (or even the inability of mature exchange altogether).

This is more of a modification of what I have written than a restatement or summation. The only 'unassailability' is that of one's financial affairs: so that what is yours cannot be taken from you. But to be a caretaker, advisor (I would not use the word 'comforter' myself) is exactly the position any man who gains some mastery of himself and also his circumstances will inevitably become. And that is how it is *supposed* to be. And that is also a prime plank of my asserted position: if you are not constructing a position within material systems, and mental systems, and conceptual systems, and if you are not doing this consciously, then I say you are failing at your manly task! That is my position, and it is opposed to the QRS position.

This all raises still the question of why you would be in Latin America or Columbia in the first place. Is it like some Western males go to Thailand for? It often reads like the need to be involved in very personal types of power relations. Do you really think it's manly to handle this type of power? Personally I see more manhood in risk taking.

You too spelled Colombia wrong! The 'Columbians' find this very amusing and refer to the 'Columbia' of the Northerner's paranoid vision of Colombia as the terrible, frightening place of their own imagination. But we are dealing in this thread with the tangible fact of projection so it is all right on the money! Do you notice how you are engaging in exactly the sort of 'middle-class' analysis I spoke of earlier? I am supposing that in your experience people just don't do anything differently than spending their incarnation in a 9-5 for 35 years? I mean, is this all so utterly unintelligible? There are at least 10 major 'reasons' (motivations) why I made the choices I did. Shall I list them for you and then have you offer your commentary?

What I do, principally, in Latin America, kind sir, is read. One of the reasons I love Colombia, but not the only reason mind you, is that I have discovered whole unknown worlds through odd and attractive used books I find here! At the same time, it is true, there were tons---scores! thousands! millions!---of pretty young women who were easily approached. Now, in my case I avoided too much carousing and stuck to the reading. But I don't at all find anything condemnable in being attracted to women! I know the 'woman issue' is a big one for the denizens of GF, but that is not my problem.

Men may go to Thailand for sex and drugs, but I don't imagine they go to Thailand to learn the language, know the culture, or to live there permanently. If a person gives themselves over to sex in that way I would have to describe it as a tragic waste of incarnation. But if women became some part of one's investigations, in literature, in philosophy, in reading and living generally, what 'wrong' is there in that? Half of you freaks are probably desperately in need of a pure, sexual romp. How frustrating it must be that you can't get to it...

[Alex T. Jacob]

Kunga wrote: I was highly emotional last night. Now I am calm. I still think intensions are everything.
I think your intensions are basically good/kindhearted. You definately need to be smart about things.
When you fall in love, you can't think straight.

Or when you drink too much wine!

I was reading the Hemingway story The Snows of Kilimanjaro, have you ever read it? It is a pretty masterful short story. But at one point the narrator says:

"But when he no longer was in love, when he was only lying, as to this woman, now ... it was strange that when he did not love her at all and was lying, that he should be able to give her more for her money than when he had really loved."

There is a kind of wild and crazy love: the love of the poets I call it. Everyone has to know it at one time or another. Some 'romantics' hang everything on it and will happily sacrifice everything...for just a half glass more. That too is something most everyone has had to live. But real 'love' must be (I think) sober, conscious, something that seeps out like a residue, a strange form of sweat, a sap. With that sort of love we can actually do something.

[Dennis Mahar]

You latch on, as does Dennis, to the wrong things! Is it permissible to re-edit? Is it possible to back-track? I described a person I know as a 'beautiful soul' which is a poetic way of saying a warm, decent, upstanding sort.

Playing the victim now.
Poor thing.

You are exploiting that situation.
You know it. I know it.
You think you are being clever and hoping it doesn't backfire.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Adam boned his babe Eve in a cheap hotel on the outskirts of Cali, Colombia, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Alex. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Dennis, a wicked little imp with crossed eyes whose glance curdled milk.

Now Dennis kept flocks, and Alex worked the soil. In the course of time Alex brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Dennis also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord barfed up his lunch when the warped imp brought his offering of shriveled meat, but on Alex and his offering he smacked his lips in favor. He said to Dennis, "Do you not know that I, the Lord, have converted to vegetarianism?"

Dennis heard the praises of the Lord and became inflamed with envy. He dedicated himself to making innane comments at every turn to his brother Alex. So Alex was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Then the Lord said to Alex, “Oh come on, man, don't let it get you down. I am the quintessential irascible God, for Christ's sake, but why should you be? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Alex pondered this and made an interpretation.

Now Alex said to his brother Dennis, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Alex attacked his brother Dennis with a machete, hacked him to little mutherfucking pieces, and killed his sorry ass. He was patting the last shovelful on the shallow grave when the Lord happened by.

And the Lord said to Alex, “Where is your brother Dennis?”

Alex was silent for a second. “I am going to be 100% straight up with you, Lord: I killed the little piece of shit. He was getting on my NERVES,” he replied. “Because the chump annoyed me I did it.”

The Lord also thought for a moment and said, “Well, I wouldn't bother about it much! Listen. He was getting on my nerves too! I was actually going to smite him and you saved me the work! Now I am going to put a blessing on you and help you to get more wealth, more books, and more pussy! Selah! When you work the ground, living things will rise out of it. You will be a cultivator on multifold levels and I will carefully watch over you.” And Alex said unto the Lord, "Lord, I thank you!"

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Liking this addition to the testament LOL nice work, I wonder if he will still manage to play the guru from the grave.

Being religious and all, and under the impression that all things are a direct expression of what should be called God, the story really makes me laugh :p

[SeekerOfWisdom]

My position is definitely the most unassailable lol, this means I win? And my excuse is that... life is about projecting on others, people themselves are only projections, after all :b

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, thanks for the background information and I've not that much to comment on it. Please do not read affirmation, denial or even lack of interest in that. But a few things do beg for some mentioning.

The "radical stepping-out of a structured system of thinking, seeing, acting and interpreting". A bit like Castaneda's shifting of the 'assembly point', I remember he was into this type of movement. I really do understand your references to penetrations and regimentation of Law. From all countries in the world, my own is one of the extremes in that, causing even (urbanized) English and American people to complain after living here.

Your explanation of how you came to be there is complete enough. No specific reason, that's okay, not something like I hoped for like escaping the clutches of the Law because of some preference for the under-aged. It would fit perfectly you know, because the forum appears so boyish and girlish to you. Now I'm just teasing though, I'm sure you can take it.

Yes, yes, I knew you meant the poetic warm and decent interpretation of "beautiful soul". It doesn't matter really for my argument which level of poetry is used. It was just about the power dynamics in general between a man and a woman, but especially a typical woman who needs and a man who stands alone being bad. It's a very interesting psychological intricate web which I'm sure you know. But is it cowardliness to steer clear from it? That would be like ignoring my whole point, that the power dynamics cannot be "controlled" like you seem to suggest. It's a risk but only when there's the possibility for exchange. A fair exchange. Anything else is not risk taking, it's just tomfoolery.

'To know how to take women' is a very powerful statement. And I don't care what the women say, or what feminism says. A woman is ALWAYS a being that a man 'takes'. You have to achieve a woman, you have to claim a woman, and you have to win a woman. And you do this from an internal, and an external, position of your own power. This is essentially my point.

Yes, the same you brought up years ago in some of your first posts. The only problem I see with it now is what I already touched upon: fair exchange. Your description as a one-way dominance is illusion. There's always reversal of power, there's always the price. And that's not in itself a 'danger' or a 'problem'. The problem starts really when there's no exchange, when the relation is "unanswered" in the sense that from power one gives (lead, claim, win) and it's received but you cannot receive equally. For a genius this is exactly the reason women become a problem, not their presence or acts but something else arises out of the skewed balance which devours all that is valued: wisdom, freedom, spirit, you name it. Only a shill is left eventually.

And that is also a prime plank of my asserted position: if you are not constructing a position within material systems, and mental systems, and conceptual systems, and if you are not doing this consciously, then I say you are failing at your manly task! That is my position, and it is opposed to the QRS position.

Well, naturally, it's the Freudian ego you are describing more or less. It's a task which in most cases provides the material, the mind and the concepts for women to exist in. And as you know the QRS is opposed to that kind of manliness as any viable philosophical or even woman-friendly path.

You too spelled Colombia wrong!

Colombia, Columbia... I guess it's all Columbus' doing which is the Latin spelling of Cristoforo Colombo. Wasn't life easier when everyone in Church spoke the same language?