feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by jupiviv »

sue hindmarsh wrote:There is a good reason for men having the blame placed upon them – they are the only one of the two genders that has a modicum of self-awareness.

If the men aren't self-aware enough to know that they are increasing the mediocrity of the world through their actions, or that doing so is bad, then they can't be blamed for their actions for the same reason that you say women can't be blamed for theirs.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Kelly Jones »

The fact men are usually quick to recognise the base and ignoble aspects of sexual desire, when corrected, speaks otherwise. When it's pointed out that they don't think about overpopulation or the good of the species, when they're in the throes of lust, they fall silent and submit to the judgment.

Contrast that to how, in a similar situation, women would get up in arms and start screaming insults or weeping in self-pitying hysteria.

However, I do note that men don't stay silent for long when challenged about the indigity of being driven by a need for sexual intercourse. Typically, they dive for alternative explanations, instead of taking the blame home to themselves. They'll usually blame women, saying, women dress provocatively (so, stop looking!), or, they're hard-wired to chase women (how do they know, since they've never tested this hypothesis in a strictly scientific way?).

When you challenge them for passing-the-buck, and call them lazy and cowardly, many men will do as Paul Elam's menagerie have done: they say they're afraid of women, since women are such nasty creatures, and poor little boys all of them, they're just innocent victims (of their own choice to enslave themselves to women....).

All that justification and rationalisation speaks of guilt.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by jupiviv »

Kelly Jones wrote:The fact men are usually quick to recognise the base and ignoble aspects of sexual desire, when corrected, speaks otherwise.
A minor proportion of them maybe. There is virtually no aspect of human sexuality as it stands now that isn't unconscious(and therefore base in a sage's book), but the average man would probably not recognise human sexuality itself as a problem.
When you challenge them for passing-the-buck, and call them lazy and cowardly, many men will do as Paul Elam's menagerie have done: they say they're afraid of women, since women are such nasty creatures, and poor little boys all of them, they're just innocent victims (of their own choice to enslave themselves to women....).

All that justification and rationalisation speaks of guilt.
It may speak of guilt, but it may just be a result of them not being able to see an alternative. Blaming them can only serve a purpose if it makes them more aware of the situation, but I'm not sure blaming, say, a 19 year old boy for the rampant sexuality of western society is going to do that.

Also, guilt and blame are different things. Guilt may flourish into wisdom with, or perhaps even as a necessary consequence of the absence of blame.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by sue hindmarsh »

jupiviv wrote:
If the men aren't self-aware enough to know that they are increasing the mediocrity of the world through their actions, or that doing so is bad, then they can't be blamed for their actions for the same reason that you say women can't be blamed for theirs.
Those are the hollow men – the men who have surrendered to the world. What self-awareness they once possessed is gone. The thing is though they still look like men, so they are confronted with the same burdens of men, but lacking any internal strength they flounder.

Picking them out in a crowd is sometimes very easy, other times more difficult. It is best to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear what they have to say, for their words quickly give them away.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by jupiviv »

sue hindmarsh wrote:jupiviv wrote:
If the men aren't self-aware enough to know that they are increasing the mediocrity of the world through their actions, or that doing so is bad, then they can't be blamed for their actions for the same reason that you say women can't be blamed for theirs.
Those are the hollow men – the men who have surrendered to the world. What self-awareness they once possessed is gone. The thing is though they still look like men, so they are confronted with the same burdens of men, but lacking any internal strength they flounder.

Picking them out in a crowd is sometimes very easy, other times more difficult. It is best to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear what they have to say, for their words quickly give them away.
Therefore, these "hollow men" shouldn't be blamed for their thoughtless actions. Anyways, I think the best way to blame the men and women who made this video is to not watch it, but the public won't do that because they are equally to blame.

I think there's a video from the 90s with a chick dancing around naked men. I don't know the name of the song or artist, but I watched it on an episode of Beavis and Butthead.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Leyla Shen »

In the Hegelian dialectic, which concerns itself with totality and therefore true knowledge, the thesis/antithesis duality of masculinity and femininity comprise the whole rather than distinct (or absolute, if you will) parts. "Gender" is not some part inherently existing in either biological sex. Rather, it comprises the stages of negation uniting as a sublation of values.

How else could it be possible for a female to be mentoring a male on what it means to be a man...
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by jupiviv »

The feminine - ignorance/unconsciousness - causes the masculine - knowledge/consciousness. But this doesn't mean that the feminine is knowledgeable/conscious.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

So, they're separate and in combination Jup?
Hello?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by jupiviv »

Dennis Mahar wrote:So, they're separate and in combination Jup?
They're separate *because* they're in combination.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

What's your combination?
50/50
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Leyla Shen »

jupiviv wrote:The feminine - ignorance/unconsciousness - causes the masculine - knowledge/consciousness. But this doesn't mean that the feminine is knowledgeable/conscious.
Really?

How much femininity is required before it causes enough masculinity to overcome itself?
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by jupiviv »

Dennis Mahar wrote:What's your combination?
50/50
There can't be a combination of duality and non-duality. Non-duality *is* duality, and vice versa.
Leyla Shen wrote:How much femininity is required before it causes enough masculinity to overcome itself?

If you are asking how much femininity/unconsciousness is required for someone to become enlightened, i.e, fully conscious, then I couldn't say. However, unconsciousness is always one of the causes of any consciousness.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

you've got femininity, unconsciousness, masculinity, consciousness..
enlightenment, unenlightened, separate, combination, nonduality is duality and vice versa.

is that the ravings of a lunatic?
what are you talking about?
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by sue hindmarsh »

What are 'you' talking about Dennis? You haven't actually said anything on this topic. I cannot imagine that you believe your interruptions are actual discussions - do you?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by sue hindmarsh »

jupiviv wrote:
However, unconsciousness is always one of the causes of any consciousness.

Unconsciousness does have its admirers, as made evident by the men in the video. They would have invested a lot of conscious effort into discovering how to empty themselves of their self-awareness in order to plunge into the unconscious. And just look at how those hollow men end up: prancing around with nude dancing girls and other sheep.
Were I full of God I should care nothing whatever for the world. To respect the world shows want of self-respect. Self-respect betokens despisery of things. Meister Eckhart
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Were I full of God I should care nothing whatever for the world. To respect the world shows want of self-respect. Self-respect betokens despisery of things. Meister Eckhart
Eckhart says,
Were I full of God I should care nothing whatever for the world.
That means 'it's empty and meaningless'.

What happens next discloses Eckhart failed the Advanced Course. Massive intelligibility shortfall.

He has a big sook. Cry baby.

Here it is,
The Advanced Course:
It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

Go straight to Nirvana, do not pass Go, do not collect 200.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Leyla Shen »

Funny how the enlightened can be so blissfully immersed in their own private Nirvana that the depth and implications of a philosophical conversation is totally lost on them.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by jupiviv »

Dennis needs a woman in his life to bring his philosophising down to earth.

...Since a man telling him that it hasn't even crawled out of the soil yet isn't going to help. It's empty and meaningless to try to make him understand that it's empty and meaningless to say ''it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless'', or for that matter, ''it's empty and meaningless.''
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You won't actually look at it, you'll just protect your prejudices/aversions.
Which isn't philosophy by the way.
I can't actually give you a direct experience of emptiness and you can't buy it in a shop.
When David says 'nothing exists ultimately' do you think he's just having a bad day and he'll get over it with a little rest.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Kunga »

Leyla Shen wrote:Funny how the enlightened can be so blissfully immersed in their own private Nirvana that the depth and implications of a philosophical conversation is totally lost on them.

Is it possible to have a philosophical discussion during orgasm ?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Leyla Shen »

John, I mean Dennis (neither of whom ultimately exist), wrote:
When David says 'nothing exists ultimately' do you think he's just having a bad day and he'll get over it with a little rest.
Let's ask him, shall we?
Dennis: I can't actually give you a direct experience of emptiness and you can't buy it in a shop.
From WOTI, David Quinn:
The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp. There is nothing mystical or religious about my use of the term "hidden void" here. I only use it to highlight the fact that the creative agent of the construction is both beyond consciousness and completely lacking in form. Only things within the construction are capable of possessing form and being experienced. The hidden void is capable of neither.
And shortly thereafter, of the enlightened he states:
[...] One no longer projects ultimate reality onto any particular appearance and thus one no longer has a personal stake in any one of them being real.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by Leyla Shen »

Is your direct experience, unlike that of the rest of us, an experience of emptiness without prejudice, Dennis?
Between Suicides
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Dennis wrote:
You won't actually look at it, you'll just protect your prejudices/aversions.
Which isn't philosophy by the way.
I can't actually give you a direct experience of emptiness and you can't buy it in a shop.
When David says 'nothing exists ultimately' do you think he's just having a bad day and he'll get over it with a little rest.
As Leyla has already pointed out, David Quinn wrote much more than that one line. His thousands upon thousands of words about many subjects were all written with the single goal of preserving wisdom.

Writing as you do Dennis, without discernment, may please you, but it also places you in danger of becoming a hollow man – for limiting yourself to that one perspective is a sure sign of someone heading into the open arms of the feminine.
From David Quinn’s, “Mastering Perspective”:

If genius is the art of being fully conscious of reality in the midst of daily life, then an essential step towards perfecting this art is learning how to master perspective.

Most people are the opposite. They are slaves to perspective. They allow themselves to become trapped within a limited range of perspectives, which closes their minds to everything else. Setting up home in these perspectives, they feel compelled to defend them vigorously, even violently. What makes their situation so comical is that the perspectives they cherish are not even theirs to begin with. They did not arrive at them independently through a conscious process of logic that has been thoroughly grounded in ultimate reality. They simply accepted them second-hand from others - from their peers, from their culture, from their tradition.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.

Post by sue hindmarsh »

jupiviv wrote:
Dennis needs a woman in his life to bring his philosophising down to earth.
NO ONE needs a woman in their life!
...Since a man telling him that it hasn't even crawled out of the soil yet isn't going to help. It's empty and meaningless to try to make him understand that it's empty and meaningless to say ''it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless'', or for that matter, ''it's empty and meaningless.''
Dennis’ concept of the universe is flawed because by itself it lacks integrity. You don’t get a picture of the person standing behind that statement. It acts more as a fortress for him to hide behind than a sword to use to cut through the illusion of life.

Your frustration at his not taking on board your, “hasn’t even crawled out of the soil” line doesn’t mean that he is to be considered a complete lost soul. There is at our disposal the lucky dip of the ten-thousand things to use to describe just how empty and meaningless things really are. Take 'women' for example…
Locked