GENIUS FORUMS

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:48 pm**

B1:

Context is important in discussions.

Well, yes—I’m hard-pressed imagining a meaningful discussion occurring without context. (:

And I believe I understand now what you mean when you say, “male ego”; a dual image, one of contemptuous self reflection and the other an insubstantial image of “the other”; of its dualistic opposite—what “the lack” looks like.

And, boy, are you right when you say this:

The desire of being admired by others is rooted in the idea that once someone reaches a certain level of glory, instant blissful fullfilment of the true or real person that remains hidden and vanquishes all envy and resentment. This idea, of course, is a phantom.

It, of course, is self defeating since each image is nothing more than a literal reflection of the other.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:09 pm**

Thank you Leyla and good discussion.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:46 am**

Leyla Shen wrote: When, however, it is disembodied as an organ-in-itself and given signification (as the phallus, for example) it becomes capable of mystical powers far beyond its organic function! as is captured neatly by the idea “penis envy”; the corresponding sexualised signification is that the vagina signifies a lack and that lack is that females (the signified "woman"), not having a penis, are, therefore, lacking some thing. Fuck knows what and in whose psyche because, you know, we’re dealing with the “truth of the unconscious”, but there you have it.

The phallus is a mirror of man, woman lacking the mirror cannot see herself and must find her reflection in others, and take that to be herself.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:08 pm**

It's a little more complex than that.

Woman is both the phallus and the lack; she becomes nothing in order to become the phallus for (castrated) man.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:11 pm**

You can think of it as a shadow. The phallus is a shadow of man and a lack.

Soundtrack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUH9vBD6938

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:33 pm**

Ahem. Why complexify it so much?

Phallus being everything that's too much with men, extraneous, what needs to die.

Phallus being everything that's in shortage with women, lacking, what needs to own.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:19 pm**

Hm. Looks a bit “short” to me, Diebert!

What? Lacan’s phallus is too hard? As if your own complexifications have never exhausted the blood supply to your brain... (:

In your haste, you didn't account for castration.

What is a man to a woman, and a woman to a man if not the phallus (desire) that fills the lack, each for the other?

Posted: **Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:53 pm**

LS wrote:What is a man to a woman, and a woman to a man if not the phallus (desire) that fills the lack, each for the other?

Another view of relationship is recognition of oneself in another. Action based on that recognition depends on self-concept, if one is on the road to becoming what is loved, or what is despised.

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:42 pm**

What do you mean?

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:58 am**

Leyla Shen wrote:What do you mean?

Yes, continue.

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:24 pm**

Leyla Shen wrote:What do you mean?

Here's an example that clarifies.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Calling things "gay" and meaning "stupid" or something like it is an unfortunate trend here in the states, too. I don't understand why they would use that on things like clothes, because gay guys are known for having a great fashion sense. Anyway, it's just an expression of prejudice, and it is ugly for that.
Prejudice seems to be a protective mechanism, a way of warding off fear and dispatching threats. The sadism of insults is basically a way of dealing with fear. Lashing out with ridicule and contempt toward what is "gay" would appear to be rather ironic, in that it indicates a character who is fragile, vulnerable and overly sensitive. Not that there's anything wrong with those qualities. The error lies in the denial of what one actually is whilst dumping shame on another for having the same traits. The most significant difference between people is in their self awareness. A man who is not aware that he has what another man has is generally an amoral and highly combustible creature.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:45 pm**

So, narcissism and projection?

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:30 am**

More like mistaken identity.

Posted: **Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:52 am**

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:If an alien came to our planet looking for redeeming qualities of our societies, would religion be one? Is a religious society further advanced than a pre-religious one? Does religion have a point? If so, is that point still relevant? If we lost all religion, would humankind suffer? Is a post-religious world more advanced than a religious one?

I'm the alien right here, right now.

Religion seeks control of you and your wallet.

Posted: **Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:59 pm**

Tomas wrote:Religion seeks control of you and your wallet.

Well, clearly organized religion does but that's because organization just means a controlling structure.

Religion just as often has inspired opposition to the control or the challenging of ruling structures. And to be effective as power, it ends up being organized as well.

To improve upon you here Tomas, I'd say: "There's always seeking of control, with money and organization representing power structuring, exchanging or consolidating".

Posted: **Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:45 pm**

Super advanced aliens would likely use religious mythologies to their advantage.

Posted: **Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:46 pm**

Tomas wrote: I'm the alien right here, right now.

Religion seeks control of you and your wallet.

I'd rather a local church use my money than the government.

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:53 pm**

Religion tell us the right path that how we live our life.

GENIUS FORUMS

What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Re: What's the Point of Religion?