Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[Alex T. Jacob]

It's actually a form of grandstanding. My goal is independence so I avoid politicking. I say what I think. When you use the word 'inquiry' what you really mean is the assertion of your foregone conclusions. I am often surprised that you and others who operate similarly don't seem to be able to see this. In any case, my observations have no links to how Laird is, what he does or doesn't do, if he is a 'lover' or a 'fighter' or really anything at all. Geddit?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Seeker, I think you are a remarkable person/thinker, and pardon that your age factors into this observation, but it does and must. Because of that, I sport some confidence that you might someday dissolve this blindspot toward the spirit of every living thing, rather than demonstrating it. :)

Thanks Pye, are you trying to say that I'm being inconsiderate of other people by asking that question? Because honestly I'm still curious about it?... :p
19 btw now, I get an extra point, plus you shouldn't factor age in for a lot of reasons, first is that age is an illusion and "I" am eternal, second is that you've never met someone so young and so old before.

I say what I think.

LOL, sureeeee you do Alex, I didn't know it was still saying what you think if your hiding it behind 90% bullshit

[Alex T. Jacob]

Master, thanks for having patience with me! I am a tough case and I know it. But Master I have one question and answering it will surely help me. You say that 10% of what I babble about is non-bullshit. Would you be so kind as to quote me back some of that 10% so that I have a model to work with?

[Pye]

Seeker writes: plus you shouldn't factor age in for a lot of reasons, first is that age is an illusion and "I" am eternal, second is that you've never met someone so young and so old before.

Well now, if we mustn't factor in age, then we can't enjoy what you've just said about yourself :)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"My personal view is that a woman is something that one should consciously decide to 'control'."

^ Something not bullshit

Bullshit means you are hiding or lying, in that quote you aren't hiding, obscuring, or lying, it's what you came to say.

What you came to say:

"I like sex, I care about only myself, I don't know what I'm doing"

... "let me intelligently outline all of my own bullshit, (Intelligently means hiding, obscuring, over complicating, getting awfully close to outright lying) that I might maybe start a brawl, get recognition, and/or agreement, to help feed my ego and somehow make me feel better seeing as I don't know what I'm doing"

Agreed?

Pye,
You mean the young and old thing? What I mean by young is young, what I mean by old, is not old.

[Tomas]

Seeker, I think you are a remarkable person/thinker, and pardon that your age factors into this observation, but it does and must. Because of that, I sport some confidence that you might someday dissolve this blindspot toward the spirit of every living thing, rather than demonstrating it. :)

Thanks Pye, are you trying to say that I'm being inconsiderate of other people by asking that question? Because honestly I'm still curious about it?... :p
19 btw now, I get an extra point, plus you shouldn't factor age in for a lot of reasons, first is that age is an illusion and "I" am eternal, second is that you've never met someone so young and so old before.

I say what I think.

LOL, sureeeee you do Alex, I didn't know it was still saying what you think if your hiding it behind 90% bullshit

Sekowism,

Geez you're 19. That was over 40 years ago for me.

Philosopher chicks? I can count four of them (over the years - since 2001) that stand out. With their permission, I'll name them.

As long as Alex doesn't go over 90% .. I'll continue reading his book . However at 93 he borders on the abyss then I drop him from reading for a couple two three pages of his blog here..

But really,, 90% is about the amount we all do. That would include the three wise men, Dan Rowden, Kevin Solway and David Quinn.

When Dan is on top of thought, he is by far the best here.

Then David Quinn because he is the more detailed of the three.

I'm beginning to think that Kevin Solway is still in search of a physical wife on this earth plane though being bald as he is it is the first thing upon meeting him is what would stand out for my anyway. Kevin's writing is by far the most intellectually-driven of the three as his is 'thought pattern pleasant' and the easiest of the three to decipher. My take is that he'd make a good university professor though he'd have to watch his everyday language due to his high IQ level .. he seems about a 145 - 155 level. He'd come across as wooden.

I'll stop here as I have a couple cups of Folger's Classic Roast. It's rare to drink coffee in the early evening. Probably get a slight caffeine buzz going but life is life.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You didn't name any philosopher chicks or how hot they were? and Alex has a blog? Not sure why you wen't on to talk about those guys

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex,

It's actually a form of grandstanding. My goal is independence so I avoid politicking. I say what I think. When you use the word 'inquiry' what you really mean is the assertion of your foregone conclusions. I am often surprised that you and others who operate similarly don't seem to be able to see this. In any case, my observations have no links to how Laird is, what he does or doesn't do, if he is a 'lover' or a 'fighter' or really anything at all. Geddit?

That's not true.

Your politics are for 'NeanderthalWorld'.

that way of being.

[Tomas]

You didn't name any philosopher chicks or how hot they were? and Alex has a blog? Not sure why you wen't on to talk about those guys

I have a wife in real time. We have seven children.

Define for me as to your description parameters on what you mean by .. hot. Do you mean hot in the philosophical makeup or (in the sense of) do I have their latest centerfolds on my computer?

With Pye's permission, I'd tell you if she is one of the Fab Four. Which above descriptor are you referring to ;-)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Well the girls on here are already hot in the philosophical sense.

Which is why I'm asking about the centerfold hot? If there is both included, that is hot.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

She Masters

[Dennis Mahar]

Dennis . . . I get you; I've always gotten you, and no matter how many verses you write that come to the aid of the disclosure of being, I will always read them and always geddit, for it always takes this kind of alertness to the human projects and formulae that restrict this disclosure, that understands this freedom as the nothing that it is, in addition to the necessity that it be able to ever-open onto itself, this freedom, more and more of the opening, wherein being can become. Like Sartre, we assume the failure of all project even as it is undergone, and all project comes to mind out of a lack, out of the 'nothing' of freedom, which really really is something, this infinite opening-onto itself of being. Human projects that stand in the way of being are the concern of freedom fighters - not a romantic term, but one of the concrete work of thought and action in support of the disclosure of being. I see here everyday some other spiritualists that have also directed their sentiments and sentences to this freedom, to the reminder-of, to the unchained mind, etc., however one wants it said. I judge all of us/those of this kind of ilk working on the same 'side.' :)

I noticed you had it figured out more than the mere reasoning of it.

You and me. We're complete. Same tribe.
thanks.

[guest_of_logic]

Dennis,

I don't think you realise that what you just said to me amounts to a negation of my own response to being violated, which in itself is a kind of violation. I'm sure that being raped is a hundred times worse that what's happened to me (many times over the past decade), but would you ever say to a person who's been raped, "Why don't you try not to complain about it, and instead respond in a more loving way?"? If you would, then you obviously don't understand what it feels like to be violated. It's not your place to suggest how people ought to (or could) respond to those experiences.

As with the puppy, I don't think you had bad intentions, I'm just explaining how it looks from my perspective.

To respond more directly to your suggestion: the first step in solving a problem is to recognise that it exists. The vast majority of people in society are completely ignorant of or in denial of any problem with the mental health system from a human rights perspective. Are you suggesting that I remain silent about a problem of which I'm aware and others aren't? In fact, I have no idea exactly what you are suggesting. Your phrasing - that my "complaint" be "transformed into another possibility" - is so vague as to be meaningless, and this in itself is kind of offensive. Your talk about "the presence of love" is platitudinous, you give no sense of what you mean by it, and the subtext of your post is anything but loving (again, recognising that you probably aren't aware of this).

I'm not going to smash up your face, I recognise your good intentions, but good intentions aren't always enough. I wish you'd become more aware of what you're communicating.

[Dennis Mahar]

I'm not denying the condition.
It exists.

It is produced out of causes/conditions.

'The mental health system' is also produced out of causes/conditions.

If you are in a conversation with anyone in the mental health system who you consider 'in violation' then its an educational context.

How could that conversation be held?

That makes a difference?

Coming from a persistent, ingrained complaint or coming from love?

.
What spirit would get the job done?

That mental health guy they made Australian of the Year,
speaks from 'love',
he got all interested parties to the table,
took the blame game out of it,
got a multi billion dollar budget from Govt.,
and enrolled the broad community of taxpayers in the project.

Everyone runs for cover in the blame game where there's no possibility for transformation.

Has that guy made a difference Laird?

[guest_of_logic]

You're not listening, Dennis. You're not my personal coach, and I haven't asked you for your opinion, in fact I've made it clear that I find it intrusive - yet you continue! That's just plain offensive. Let me make it clear: I'm not interested in having my response to the problems that affect me defined or questioned by you, whether by you telling me what that response "is" or what it "could" or "should" be. If you were self-aware, you'd recognise that you're not even taking your own advice. To persist in forcing your opinions on someone who has made it clear that he finds them intrusive is not loving.

[Dennis Mahar]

OK, the subject is a 'hot potato'.
Hush.
Not open.

.As with the puppy, I don't think you had bad intentions, I'm just explaining how it looks from my perspective.

[guest_of_logic]

That response is to deflect your own gracelessness onto me, which is not much help. It's not so much that the subject is "hot potato" as that you have no understanding of it, and no tact in your approach to it. Professor McGorry deals with a different class of problem, the problem of improving mental health services and resources for youth who want them. That is a problem where love has a softer face. What does it mean to be loving when you are combating violations of human rights? Does it mean sending flowers to the policemen who broke into your home and, in the face of your passive resistance, manhandled you out of it and handcuffed you in the back of a paddywagon, to be imprisoned for weeks or longer, sometimes being held down by groups of men and forcibly injected with substances, sometimes being drugged into unconsciousness to have electricity passed through your sleeping brain, all without charge or having done any wrong - perhaps with a little note attached to the flowers that reads, "Hey guys, I love you and I forgive you, please don't do it again"? Do you think that's going to make a difference? Or does it mean making people aware in no uncertain terms that what has been done to you is wrong and shouldn't happen again? Yet to you, this is just "complaining". Tell me something, Dennis, how is a problem to be addressed if the mere disclosure of it is seen as a complaint lacking in love? How would you feel if that happened to you, and when you raised it as a problem, somebody said to you, effectively, "Quit complaining and be more loving"?

[Dennis Mahar]

Your talk about "the presence of love" is platitudinous,

When I say 'the presence of love' I'm talking about the love of philosophy, the love of wisdom,
the awe.

there are causes/conditions for suffering.

Many of the posters here, when they are posting, they are posting immersed in that presence.
It transmits.

A major cognition is realising the past is in the past.
Not here. Not now.
Therefore the past is a Story.

To be present is to be free of the past.

The past can be mined detachedly for education; as a means to correct errors in thinking and practices.

It is the basis for Inquiry.

I've been to hundreds of meetings, as a member of a Mens Group Network in Victoria, where men have stood up in front of an audience and talked powerfully about their condition, some of them of their bipolar condition.
They told of how sometimes it was necessary to be restrained for their own safety and on reflection grateful for it.

There's no shame in it.

It's just the conditions.

When I say a 'persistent, ingrained complaint', I mean sitting in that place, as sitting on the pitypot.

It is possible to act powerfully in the public arena by demonstrating how current thinking and practices are failing those suffering the condition.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Dennis: 'Politicking' meant: aligning with others or teaming up with others (of like mind but not always) to resist or block some other poster.

Neanderthal world: I live in a place where I am forced to see the very raw facts of power-relations. The straight facts about power. It has changed significantly how I view the 'first-world' discourses about power-relations. You seem to me completely wrapped up in false, insincere 'image-management' of your self and paint yourself with a lovey-dovey shellac, but you are very transparently deeply concerned about 'power', defense of your ego, preaching, etc. In the world I live in you would more or less immediately get exactly what you deserve: a smashed face. There is an honesty in that and instead of wasting 10 years in idle talk, or even 10 minutes, you would immediately receive life's lesson.

You seem to me the classical 'spiritual' bullshit artist. All this posturing, pretension, appearing in places you have no right to. And there is nothing to stop you, which (for you) is really a misfortune. In many ways you are 'the worst of the worst' in this sense. And simultaneously we get the joy of experiencing your spiritual brother, Swami Sockit-to-me: you are both perfect for all this! To make yourselves the center of all this attention when in fact you have so little to contribute must be exhilarating!

[guest_of_logic]

Dennis, in contrast to the men with bipolar disorder in your group, I have never been grateful for being restrained or imprisoned, it has neither improved my own safety nor that of anyone else. The most violent I have ever been in such a situation is to slightly raise my voice and utter an expletive at the intruders, demanding that they leave my home - a demand that went unheeded. Otherwise, I have not so much as physically resisted - the most "physical" I've been is to attempt to run from a vehicle in which I was being transported, an attempt that was thwarted violently by an "officer of the law". Aside from the fact that I have no desire to harm even those who are imposing themselves on me, it would be futile, being that they are stronger and more numerous than I; also, I know the score: to resist violently gives the system an excuse to treat you more violently and less considerately in return.

I neither seek nor care for your pity, I expect only recognition of a problem.

In any case, I've said what I wanted to say, and if I sound harsh it's not because I bear you a grudge personally, it's just because I don't appreciate the way in which you made your contribution. I'm actually in a pretty calm place right now after having woken up this morning inexplicably angry and irritable - such a rare occurrence that I can't even remember the last time it happened, especially without apparent cause.

Have a happy festive season, and give your puppies an extra doggy treat for me.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Swami Sockit-to-me: you are both perfect for all this! To make yourselves the center of all this attention when in fact you have so little to contribute must be exhilarating!

hehe more bullshit :D

In case you didn't notice almost all your posting has had no relation to philosophy, no contribution, only insults based on your ignorance and ego, it takes 5 seconds to tell who is posting as themselves and who is posting for themselves, people posting as themselves aren't hiding behind their vocab being purposefully vague and obscure to avoid looking like an idiot, softening the blow but what your really saying is:

"Fuckin' this latina, don't trust her or anyone, keeping my money secure and controlling her, aka, I'm constantly manipulating and lying to feed my own selfish desires"

ONE SENTENCE ^

Agreed?

Clearly agreed, I didn't say anything that wasn't a fact, some proof is coming up soon in a quote.

Stop bullshitting, speak more like this 10%, when you are being honest about your immaturity and that your still massively caught in illusions and desire,

"My personal view is that a woman is something that one should consciously decide to 'control'."

[Pye]

Laird writes: would you ever say to a person who's been raped, "Why don't you try not to complain about it, and instead respond in a more loving way?"

Laird, at the risk of making hot potato soup here, you are correct - there is an enormous leap between violation and forgiveness. Too enormous for a lot of people to make. The refusal of this possibility (and I'm not implying your abject refusal) is what turns the victim into their own perpetrator - perpetuating the hurt, the violence over and over again against themselves, within themselves, on and on. One becomes less of a victim and more of a perpetrator, or perpetuator, actually, of the very thing from which they would like to be free. This isn't a simple matter of 'blaming the victim' - victimization has already happened; we can all claim our titles in such circumstances. But the real insidiousness of the violation is the echo chamber it enters into in our heads. Perpetrator has already done his/her deed(s). Victim picks up the club and continues the violence, the violation . . . .

Have you ever heard some of the stories of people who face the perpetrators of their losses and then do the unimaginable thing in 'forgiving' them? These are not swami-hippie-love fantasies, but real and concrete circumstances that people of any class or condition have undergone in courtrooms, prison visitations, private letters, private and public arbitration, as well as in the dark nights of their own souls. These people desire to be free, desire their natural condition of such; there's no swami-bullshit steering them, directing them but the weight of their own hearts, as well as the only path possible free of the echo chamber.

I'm just trying to expose the heart-of what seems heartless to you and perhaps others. It's a deep long thought; it's a long walk; and not everyone can make it. But I would think its very real and very concrete appearance in the world would be enough for a crack of light onto the dark circumstances of the wounded self.

I'm not trying to tell you how to feel. I'm guessing that in your circumstances this dehumanizing irritation is still and often present in the daily conduct of your life. I just wanted to catch a profound idea-in-reality before it gets too far slam-dunked by personal pain.

It's proper to call it 'love' - it's proper to call it forgiveness, for both are the same force of mergence with something, in the same way is understanding. Love engines us to merge with even the most repulsive of things in our understanding of them. And understanding is flat-out the only point from which proactive and concrete address to it can be made in the world.

[guest_of_logic]

Hello Pye, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful post, it's a genuine pleasure to hear from you. In a sense, I don't even feel a need to forgive, because I feel little hatred, and as it is I don't really blame anyone in particular, I blame a system. I sometimes feel anger, yes, and, being honest I will admit that that anger might in some ways lead to or be tinged with something akin to hatred, but it's not a deeply-felt or burning hatred, more the fleeting hatred of a wounded creature lashing out defensively. I feel this anger only when I recollect and consider the events in question, which these days (it has been slightly over a year since my last incarceration) is not often, and even then only when I focus on their injustice, whereas more often than not I simply reflect unemotionally on their contents. I do not have antagonistic relationships with those from the system who continue to impose themselves in my life (I have been on a "community treatment order" since my last incarceration, which legally requires me to accept visits from health care workers every fortnight; if I refuse either those or to continue taking prescription anti-psychotic drugs, the law and operating practice dictate that I be forcibly returned to hospital, where I will be forcibly drugged in any case. Thankfully, this order expires in a couple of days; with any luck, the authorities will not attempt to renew it, and if they do, I think I have a good chance of successfully contesting it). In fact, the social worker previously assigned to my case confided to me in an email not long ago that he is leaving the mental health care system to take up a drug and alcohol counselling role in part as a matter of conscience provoked by my case and his experiences and discussions with me. He recognises the injustice of the system and chooses to no longer be part of it.

[Pye]

"My personal view is that a woman is something that one should consciously decide to 'control'."

A very, very old thought borne of the flesh of the spirit. Women will always know that their progeny is "theirs" but men cannot secure such assurances unless everything about her breeding access and behaviour is controlled. It's so very very simple and so very very deep. He needs a place in the reproductive loop, as every living thing that can, does secure the knowledge of which offspring are theirs to invest in. The impulse to live oneself forward, perpetuate life, is the definition of life - to live. Around this fleshly reality grows a whole pathology of thinking, the roots of which can be seen in everything from the history of law, social movement, right to property and free passage, the strictures of marriage, lesser-paying work, etc. - all the way to the 'double standard' that so many can identify, but fail to understand as flesh.

Patriarchal science delivers men their best defense yet in the paternity test, but this is still an after-the-fact solution. Until the abject fear that underpins every and all legislation or personal control of women is seen for what it is - a deep, deep primordial fear over sexual access and progenous identity - then no sane solution to thoughts such as above can be forthcoming - not from the fear that drives this need to control, nor the women who fail to account for it in their ignorance and frustration.

If he wanders, well then, his deep-bedded chances are increased.
If she wanders, we won't know which he it was - in patriarchy, a disaster, as well as it whole raison d'etre for patriarchy to begin with.

Freud once referred to patriarchy as the first great handshake of civilization; the step from animal-to-human: rather than violence or killing to secure breeding rights, men will agree to these social parameters (including a special category for prostitutes, wherein any progeny can also fall through the social netting) - men will agree to these social parameters, and these can only work if women (and children) are considered property, with all dues rights of force and control.

The woman lives a different reality to this. She needn't forcefully insert herself into the breeding loop when she is the breeding loop. Self-conscious man has to know in some 'other' way than his flesh . . . . (though flesh it be).

[skipair]

"My personal view is that a woman is something that one should consciously decide to 'control'."

A very, very old thought borne of the flesh of the spirit. Women will always know that their progeny is "theirs" but men cannot secure such assurances unless everything about her breeding access and behaviour is controlled. It's so very very simple and so very very deep. He needs a place in the reproductive loop, as every living thing that can, does secure the knowledge of which offspring are theirs to invest in. The impulse to live oneself forward, perpetuate life, is the definition of life - to live. Around this fleshly reality grows a whole pathology of thinking, the roots of which can be seen in everything from the history of law, social movement, right to property and free passage, the strictures of marriage, lesser-paying work, etc. - all the way to the 'double standard' that so many can identify, but fail to understand as flesh.

Patriarchal science delivers men their best defense yet in the paternity test, but this is still an after-the-fact solution. Until the abject fear that underpins every and all legislation or personal control of women is seen for what it is - a deep, deep primordial fear over sexual access and progenous identity - then no sane solution to thoughts such as above can be forthcoming - not from the fear that drives this need to control, nor the women who fail to account for it in their ignorance and frustration.

That's very interesting and probably explains jealousy and male competition.

I'm always amused when double standards are brought up. Our modern age is obsessed with equality. Probably they will start to use the same terminology in all sports. A touchdown? No, a goal. A home run? No, a goal. Nothing can be different. We don't want to offend anyone. Even W. Bush had a scoreless little league game on the white house lawn. If anyone should know better it'd be him. There's probably a place for examining double standards but more often than not, it's just different standards and different agendas rubbing against each other.

For my part, the 'control' mentioned has nothing to do with her fidelity and all to do with how she treats me. All women misbehave in relationships, and if suggesting or even commanding better behavior doesn't work, then a real guy will say goodbye. Different guys have different borders to be sure. It's good to be very clear about how you want to be treated!