Women Aren't Funny

[Kunga]

The irony is, when you lay about yourself thrashing angrily and calling me names of hatred and abuse, all it does is point to the shallowness of your attainment. The only angry, hateful person is you.Women see the world through love and hate: through emotion. That is why they can't become enlightened. They can't differentiate things clearly.

Oh Kelly....the same can be said of all the hate-filled misogynistic, anti-feminine crap you subscribe to.
When Wisdom and Compassion [Feminine and Masculine] Unite as one [Non-Duality], then there is Enlightenment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yab-Yum


Embrace your femininity as well as your masculinity.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: You didn't give legitimate proof

Kunga: Yes I did...I didn't make any of it up....it was not my opinion, but statements made by reliable sane people. LOL

Do you see why "other people say it is so" is an argumentum ad populam, the logical fallacy of trying to prove a statement or proposition based on the number of people who believe it? Or "the authorities say it is so" is an argumentum ad verecundiam, the logical fallacy of trying to prove a statement or proposition based on the fact some supposed expert supports it?

Also, you only wanted ONE woman to fit those CATAGORIES [Spiritual,Philosopher,Logician], you didn't initially specify as to quality.,,,you added those qualifiers after the initial task of finding the evidence....so you moved the goal posts ...

Your claim was that women are as competent as men, in spiritual matters. This means, you claim the existence of at least one female who matches the wisest of the wise, the greatest logician, and the philosophically soundest. It's a logical sequitur. There's no shifting of any goal posts. So, I challenged you to come up with at least one of each. You haven't.

KJ: claiming I was frothing at the mouth and a rabid bitch. What do you think that achieves? If nothing else, your responses are wonderfully clear demonstrations of the feminine mind

Kunga: Yes, and can you see how the belittling of my character as being "Not qualified to speak of spirituality, logic", etc. is the same demonstration of the bitchy feminine minded ?

It's not belittling. It's the truth. You are not qualified. I'd be begrandising you if I said otherwise.

KJ: You'reclearly not qualified to speak of spirituality, logic, or philosophy, judging by how poor your understanding of any of these things is.

Kunga: Ad Hominem

Sorry, but no. It's a logical conclusion that someone isn't qualified to speak of something based on their demonstration of ignorance. Try to do some thinking before you keep leaping into false conclusions.

KJ: All this proves is that you haven't a clue about spirituality, nor why logic is so important to it. But it doesn't stop you from using the Genius Forum as a place to socialise --- as if that couldn't prove any more clearly how superficial and small-minded you are.

Kunga: Ad Hominem

Again, wrong. My criticism of your abuse of the forum, splattering us all with your thoughtless emotionalism, comes after my conclusion that you're unqualified to talk of spirituality, not before. It's just further evidence that you've nothing positive to offer the members of the forum, only as a negative stimulant in the opposite direction.

.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: The irony is, when you lay about yourself thrashing angrily and calling me names of hatred and abuse, all it does is point to the shallowness of your attainment. The only angry, hateful person is you.Women see the world through love and hate: through emotion. That is why they can't become enlightened. They can't differentiate things clearly.

Kunga: Oh Kelly....the same can be said of all the hate-filled misogynistic, anti-feminine crap you subscribe to.

Back to square one. Let me make this simple. Do you believe any perception of inequality between men and women is owing to hate? So what do you make of the following real-world inequalities? That Nature itself is a deluded misogynist, out of touch with political correctness?

• a pregnant woman is not as competent as a man, to work as a stonemason, shifting ten tonne of stone a day by physical strength and skill, because she is at risk of miscarriage.
• males and females are segregated in professional sports, because women cannot run as fast, swim as fast, jump or throw as far or high, grip as hard, judge visual-spatial targets as quickly, etc.
• females tend not to work in highly dangerous, physical, risk-taking jobs, like mining, forestry, bridge-building, construction, fire-fighting, deep-sea rescue, special forces, riot squads, etc. because they are physically and psychologically less capable and more averse to such occupations. This is confirmed by the overwhelming number of male fatalities in the workplace.
• women far outweigh men in easy, low-stress jobs like nannying, teaching infants, domestic cleaning, receptionists, check-out cashiers, children's face-painting, craft, sewing and knitting, and general office duties. This is because they are psychologically disposed to low-stress, low-intellect jobs. That is a matter of competency.

When Wisdom and Compassion [Feminine and Masculine] Unite as one [Non-Duality], then there is Enlightenment.

So you believe it's wise and compassionate to call me a rabid bitch?

Care to explain how that works, please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yab-Yum

Embrace your femininity as well as your masculinity.

The symbolic use of feminine and masculine, in Buddhism and Taoism, to represent aspects of Ultimate Reality, or as a poetic way of referring to the psychology of spiritual progress, has absolutely nothing to do with actual biological males and females. As to the use of sex to experience nonduality, that's a load of ego-bolstering bullshit. The fact is, if you have to enter into a trance state, or altered state of consciousness, to experience a strengthening or heightening of enlightenment, then you absolutely don't have a clue what the truth is, that enlightenment rests on.

How can you write "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form", and yet assume attachment to specific forms as necessary for realisation? Because you haven't a clue.


.

[jupiviv]

The words that are beyond your comprehension fit the situation, and your words suit your faith, jupi.

Spoken like a true bigot.

[jupiviv]

This really is my only social life too, as I could care less about having one.

If that's actually true then you should seriously consider not posting here. You come off a very impressionable person, and quite a few of the people that post here are crazy to some degree or other. I've also seen you post personal info on here, which could come back to bite you in the ass in surprisingly consequential ways.

[Cahoot]

Jupi’s world, confirmed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Kunga actually does not need any philosophy or Buddhism in her life as it only seems to serve to keep her tied up in her problems. Sometimes it looks like she actually thrives on being criticized and ridiculed here, as if it's only affirming what she already believes about herself. What she should do is get some help or counseling without "spirituality' attached and work on self esteem and learn how to dig into her own psyche. It's something everyone has to do before venturing out in more dangerous territories. It's hard to believe how accommodating the forum has been since it's not doing her any good at all obviously.

[Dennis Mahar]

Cahoot,
ya' reckon jup fronts up as tommy lee jones to drop a hint for kelly
How romantic

[Cahoot]

Cahoot,
ya' reckon jup fronts up as tommy lee jones to drop a hint for kelly
How romantic

Probably, but I suspect it’s a futile yearning.

Jupi’s manifested intent is to arouse through abuse, and to be aroused by abuse.

Kelly’s manifested intent is truth and any abuse is incidental.

Shifting this observation into principle, a reaction to abuse born of any intent is still a reaction. To be proactive rather than reactive clarifies intent into the singular, non-dual state of no conflict. This is why one dulled by suffering sees problems, and one awakened from suffering sees no conflict, when both are faced with the same phenomena. Si?

Jupi, to test the courage of your intent, try abusing a violent drunk down at the bar, in whatever creative fashion you feel will be true to your intent. That should be satisfying for you, and you may learn something. ;)

[jupiviv]

@Cahoot, my intent, as you say, was certainly to arouse. Unfortunately, all I've aroused is your indignation.

To say that faith invariably breeds violence assumes so much, or as the case may be, so *little* about both faith and violence that it is effectively a meaningless statement. As a historical statement it is plainly false, and as a philosophical one it is insufficiently lucid.

[Cahoot]

Should we dip into the jupi box of responses? Naw. That’s your world.

Your purpose is noted. In your permanent record.

As for the big K., sure it’s true. The statement is very specific. The “invariably” makes it so.

The breeding can take the form of protecting. Protecting the faith, which it often does, whatever that faith may be, faith in a savior or an ideal, a lifestyle, a level of comfort known or hoped for, possessions, faith that no one has the right to touch your car in traffic, all the little daily faiths stemming from the ego that needs the faith. Faith in the status quo, faith in revolution. Faith in a paycheck. Some religions take the offensive for protection and propagate the faith though violence, I know of at least one. It’s everywhere. Look around. Wake up and smell the coffee, cowboy. Better you know the truth than remain willfully ignorant, don’t you think?

Btw: your work in No Country For Old Men was brilliant. Good, evil, and the one trapped by choice.

[Dennis Mahar]

Kelly's sophistry isn't truth
empty words
Wood duck
and she knows her own inauthenticity and won't admit it publicly
stuck in a survial option

trying to impress the mirror on the wall

[Cahoot]

The transmitter transmits. The receiver fine tunes the reception.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dependent arising
impermanence
lacking self nature

[Pam Seeback]

Kelly's sophistry isn't truth
empty words
Wood duck
and she knows her own inauthenticity and won't admit it publicly
stuck in a survial option

trying to impress the mirror on the wall

Dennis, why do you believe that projecting what you believe Kelly knows of herself has any relevance to what she actually knows of herself?

[Kelly Jones]

Kunga actually does not need any philosophy or Buddhism in her life as it only seems to serve to keep her tied up in her problems. Sometimes it looks like she actually thrives on being criticized and ridiculed here, as if it's only affirming what she already believes about herself. What she should do is get some help or counseling without "spirituality' attached and work on self esteem and learn how to dig into her own psyche. It's something everyone has to do before venturing out in more dangerous territories. It's hard to believe how accommodating the forum has been since it's not doing her any good at all obviously.

Yes, all of this is quite right. Kunga admitted several years ago, around 2008, on the PhilosopheCafe, if I remember correctly, that she heavily relied on religious Buddhism (i.e, the ritual industry) to keep her psychologically stable. However, at the time she admitted her dependency on her "authority figures" wasn't actually helping her to develop her own individual strength of mind, just as a tree doesn't develop its own shear strength when it is coupled to external buttresses. And so, she was making a genuine effort to wean herself off the whole shebang. But five years later, she's back on the dope with a vengeance, even worse than before. She's obviously too addicted to the ritual industry, to give it up and trust her own mind.

She is, I believe, in her fifties or sixties. So she's clearly too set in her ways to start over. There's no doubt or "sin-consciousness" apparent there. So, no point in playing preux chevalier, Diebert. Better she simply find somewhere else to feed her cravings. There are so many lost souls, it's not productive to waste energy on the ones with no scope.


.

[Cahoot]

Lot’s of egos, lots of room. No biggie. But I’m just a guest and don’t pay the bills. Whatever gets one fired up is useful.

[Kelly Jones]

The Disciple asked:

What is a misogynist?

The Master replied: I do not know; but it is used by cowards as a term of abuse for those who say what everybody thinks. Cowards are the men who cannot approach a woman without going out of their minds and becoming treacherous. They buy the woman’s favour by serving their friends’ heads on a silver platter; and they absorb so much femininity that they see with her eyes and feel with her feelings. Agreed: there are things you do not mention in everyday conversation, and you do not tell your woman what is the essence of her gender; but one is sometimes allowed to write it. Schopenhauer put it best, Nietzsche not badly, Joséphin Péladan is the master; Thackeray wrote Men’s Wives, but that was suppressed; Balzac unmasked Caroline in The Physiology of Marriage, and Petty Troubles of Married Life; Otto Weininger, having discovered the treachery when he was twenty, did not wait for the revenge but left the scene.

by August Strindberg

Copied from here, where you can find links to the works mentioned.

.

[Cahoot]

No blame. Everyone does what they must within the perfection of inevitability. We’ll all be gone soon enough and frustration is as great a teacher for the teacher as humility is for learning.

[jupiviv]

The breeding can take the form of protecting. Protecting the faith, which it often does, whatever that faith may be, faith in a savior or an ideal, a lifestyle, a level of comfort known or hoped for, possessions, faith that no one has the right to touch your car in traffic, all the little daily faiths stemming from the ego that needs the faith. Faith in the status quo, faith in revolution. Faith in a paycheck. Some religions take the offensive for protection and propagate the faith though violence, I know of at least one. It’s everywhere. Look around. Wake up and smell the coffee, cowboy. Better you know the truth than remain willfully ignorant, don’t you think?

That's still too vague to actually be meaningful. If you're going to define both faith and violence as any kind of human irrationality, then why are you limiting the causes of violence to faith? Supernovas, myna birds and the concept of linear programming also breed violence.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

She is, I believe, in her fifties or sixties. So she's clearly too set in her ways to start over. There's no doubt or "sin-consciousness" apparent there. So, no point in playing preux chevalier, Diebert. Better she simply find somewhere else to feed her cravings. There are so many lost souls, it's not productive to waste energy on the ones with no scope.

Well, I think I was the only one around here who has been straight with her so far, from the get go. She writes and thinks like a twelve year old girl. Discussing any serious topic with her feels like some form of pedophilia! She described, I assume truthfully for now, her domestic situation a few times and from that clearly emerged a problem child-woman that nodoby should waste energy on, apart from saying: you should leave and abandon your silly belief in philosophies that only will take away what you crave most. Her posts I haven't read anymore since quite some time now. I'm not sure in how many ways one could say "leave". So don't project your valiant knight on me! :)

[Kelly Jones]

I've been thinking about chivalry, after watching some of the Jeeves and Wooster series by Laurie Hughes and Stephen Fry. I don't know if Wooster's endless inability to say no to a woman, except deviously, is actually comedy (probably not, it's more about silly and inept ways to avoid tragedy). But he certainly seems to be a good representation of the man who creates fatheaded, selfish women, because of his short-sighted ideal of being chivalrous.

Why can't he say no to these fathead women? E.g., "No, I won't marry you." Or, "No, I won't steal your father's scandal-filled memoirs, to avoid them being published and ruining your social status." Or, "No, rather than being in love with you, I think you're deeply unattractive and dull-witted." Or, "No, I don't find you a toppingly sexy little fizzer, as you behave like someone an inch away from catching your nth venereal disease." Etc. These sorts of replies make her look dumb, unattractive, selfish, inferior, etc. --- and that's why men don't say these things. Like a wild-fire, the awareness would spread that women aren't objects of admiration and aspiration. Men would stop being attracted. Then what?

This is why men lie to women: If men went around openly stating the truth about the differences between the sexes, heterosexuality would change fundamentally, to something more like homosexuality, where the principle of opposites attracting, would be far more subtle and intellectual. Possibly this is why modern male homosexuality is so sentimental and cartoonish, even as exemplified by Stephen Fry. Men instinctively can't stomach that kind of humiliation: it's a woman's role.

In fact, should men be "misogynists" (i.e. tell the truth about women, and stop being polite), then libido as humans know it would probably die out, because, arguably few men are sexually attracted to themselves. To require such a change, means men have to value intellect and reasoning far higher than they generally do. So, the less wisdom and enlightenment are valued in society, the more chivalry will be needed to maintain sexual interactions as humans have engaged in them so far.

How can we best push the human species higher? It seems to me that much of the reason that women are such retards, is because men let them whittle on. Of course, one can't reason with a woman, since feminine logic is simply the expression of her will. She seems incapable of seeing the world through any other lens but what she wants and feels. But there are ways of stopping a woman from that downward slide, and I'm speaking in terms of generations of women. There are many ways to discourage, and they don't have to be chivalrous or condescending ways. The best way to get someone to behave like an adult is to treat them like one.

Women don't make good comedians, but they sure make comic figures. Men are quite happy to mock and criticise each other, so a good place to start with raising the standards for the human species is in the comedy of the feminine mind. There is much to mock, and it is very easy. The aim is, however, not to concentrate one's efforts on helping women, but men, or we'll be back into the chivalrous bog again.


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There are many ways to discourage, and they don't have to be chivalrous or condescending ways. The best way to get someone to behave like an adult is to treat them like one.

People tend to assume the age and manners of the people they surround themselves with. In the case of Kunga, she described her household of consisting of extremely immature males. What to me is obvious is that they will never grow up if "mother" is still around to level everything into a comfort zone. Being adult means one stops feeding of the "breast" and in case of codependencies the only maturation available is individualization and abandonment. Men keep wo-men from growing up just as much as mother-wives do not encourage any non-material masculinity in men. This is why it all boils down for me to one advice, for starters, which is: leave all products of male imagination (whore-mother-model-wife). That's even way before any philosophy can take hold.

[Leyla Shen]

Will-you marry me?

Leyla Shen

<3

No.

<3 xx