Why is it so?

[whocares]

Why is it so that on a potential "Genius" Forum, people revert to everyday chat?

Politics, Religion etc?

Gee....maybe it is because people are indeed emotional beings trying to work out their "purpose" in life?

Even you budding philosophers are attempting to work out why you are here, just by trying to work out the workings of the universe.

Do you think you could attempt that by not putting the boot into "WOMAN" or "women" every opportunity you get?

Just wondering, cos it makes you appear like pathetic little men who never got "the woman of your dreams" or something to that effect.

But, hey? This forum is for men of both sexes right?

Makes you wonder why females were made the way they were? (in general) Gee..........maybe to balance nature????? I know how much you guys dig nature.

Please feel free to put copius amounts of shit on me. At least I speak in everyday language.

[DHodges]

Just wondering, cos it makes you appear like pathetic little men who never got "the woman of your dreams" or something to that effect.

Do you have someone particular in mind here, some particular statement, or are you just generally uncomfortable with the environment?

This forum is for men of both sexes right?

Not quite... it's just that this forum is not for women of either sex. It's not that they are excluded, it's just that they will not have an interest in the topics discussed here, and will eventually wander off.

At least I speak in everyday language.

That's good! An important skill. Better to be clear than to be poetic.

[David Quinn]

whocares wrote:

Even you budding philosophers are attempting to work out why you are here, just by trying to work out the workings of the universe.

Do you think you could attempt that by not putting the boot into "WOMAN" or "women" every opportunity you get?

If you look more closely at the threads, you'll see that there is actually very little talk about women here. Most of the threads are about truth, illusion, the nature of reality, causality, etc. That should give you an idea of the true focus of this forum.

In fact, I've even been thinking lately that the subject of woman needs revisiting again. It is such a pervasive and deep attachment in our society, after all. One of the biggest reasons why people are so philosophically inept and unwise is because of their constant obsession with women and feminine values. I know you don't like it, but this has to be faced. It's not something that can be swept under the carpet all the time.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Even you budding philosophers are attempting to work out why you are here, just by trying to work out the workings of the universe.

Do you think you could attempt that by not putting the boot into "WOMAN" or "women" every opportunity you get?

Just wondering, cos it makes you appear like pathetic little men who never got "the woman of your dreams" or something to that effect.

Ah, the quaint old "never got the woman of your dreams" so you're damaged goods which is why you dissect "woman" chestnut. <yawn> Seriously, only a woman could come up with that perspective. Reducing what is the most intelligent analysis of the dualistic dimensions of consciousness we label "masculine/feminine" the world has known to a form of psychological trauma for which one ought seek therapy is too emotionally reactive to be taken seriously. Such an analysis, is, in its essence, an analysis of the nature of consciousness itself. It's a little hard to do that fully without delving into (to some extent) the practical manifestations of those aspects of consciousness. Oft' times people need those practical examples to be able to get their minds around what is being discussed.

But, hey? This forum is for men of both sexes right?

Or for men and women of neither sex.

Makes you wonder why females were made the way they were? (in general)

There is no why. There is only the reality that presents itself.

Please feel free to put copius amounts of shit on me.

That's ok, I think we'll leave that for you to do by yourself. No sense in getting one's hands dirty if it isn't necessary.

At least I speak in everyday language.

Ah, yes, that would be the language of gratuitous crap, would it not? :)


Dan Rowden

[whocares]

You guys seem to think that your "reality" is the only one, but it boils down to the fact that, although your arguments are clever, and well worded, it is still your own opinions.

Women have no original thoughts. They only follow everybody else.

Not unlike you lot following Jesus (how did he get involved in your cause, by the way, how the hell do you know he was into your mind set? If he even existed at all?)

Nietsche (pardon spelling? I don't really care) and all the others? You obviously agree with their thoughts, so is it only a man's perogative to have "gurus" and I use the term VERY loosely!?

[Dan Rowden]

You guys seem to think that your "reality" is the only one, but it boils down to the fact that, although your arguments are clever, and well worded, it is still your own opinions.

Women have no original thoughts. They only follow everybody else.

Not unlike you lot following Jesus (how did he get involved in your cause, by the way, how the hell do you know he was into your mind set? If he even existed at all?)

Nietsche (pardon spelling? I don't really care) and all the others? You obviously agree with their thoughts, so is it only a man's perogative to have "gurus" and I use the term VERY loosely!?

Men respect and can even admire character and mind in other men. Can women do that? If so, what's your problem? I have no idea why you speak in the language of "following" and "gurus". That reflects your mind, not ours.

Some thinkers of the past are worthy of respect and admiration. They are capable of inspiring people into greater depths of thought. They are not to be "followed". Elsewhere, you speak as though you know us. You clearly don't.

Your problem is you are terrified by real depth of thought. I respect your terror. It means something. But in the end how much does it really mean?

Dan Rowden

[GrimNexus]

a pee puddle in the corner?

but then, everything else amounts to that, too

[Notorious]

I think it's all very funny and sad.

[zarathustra]

careful whocares....you've alerted the black shirts...get ready to be intellectually humiliated, raped and mugged...they have sharp teeth and small brains that pulsate in a cranium chock-a-block with big empty ideas about their own superiority...what little knowledge they have they weild like a bundle of rods... fascia=fasces=fascinum=fascist: their gender ( fascia masturbatus wankus ) can be traced back to the Roman Empire by historical cause and effect...traditionally they are anti-women ( men are made for war and women for the recreation of the warrior )....they also gave poofters ( of whatever gender), jews, gypsies, intellectuals, artists and the disabled a hard time - so don't expect to be treated kindly....

[zarathustra]

heer drowden von dickhead.....

thats it mate kick her! kick her! fucking miserable deluded bitch!
ok, ok now the rods!!!!

[zarathustra]

go! go! go! hodgpodge!!!! bite! bite! bite!

[Jason]

Whocares is right that there is far too much chit chat, religion, politics and focus on women and the feminine on here. The quality of genius forum is so low it makes me feel dirty to even post here. Just by posting here it's helping something that probably should be dead.

[David Quinn]

The Brothel was designed to channel a lot of that sort of stuff away from the main forum, but it doesn't always work. But really, it all comes down to the quality of those who post and that is something which fluctuates over time.

You're perfectly free to raise the standards with your own posts, Jason. The forum is your oyster too.

What have you been doing with yourself lately?

-

[Jason]

The Brothel was designed to channel a lot of that sort of stuff away from the main forum, but it doesn't always work. But really, it all comes down to the quality of those who post and that is something which fluctuates over time.

You're perfectly free to raise the standards with your own posts, Jason. The forum is your oyster too.

What have you been doing with yourself lately?

-

Oh the unintended irony! Yet I keep posting(insert infinite loop of irony here.)

[David Quinn]

I was interested to know whether you had been leading a philosophic existence or not. If you haven't been, then I'm not really interested.

-

[zarathustra]

glad you asked jason....


do our conclusions about nature through philosophising
reflect the reality of nature accurately?

is it possible to be totally objective about such conclusions?

if cause and effect go on ad infinitum, if within this context, we deduce certain things, would such deductions be true for everyone, or only for one's self? further would they be true at all given the trailing consequence of causes and effects into forever?

in the context of Nature as Q sees it, what is the nature of good and evil? do they in fact exist? do they have a use by date? if yes - then when? why?

further, in essence, what do they mean?

when nietzsche and others speak of going beyond good and evil
what do they mean? how much of an authority are they? what are their credentials?


IRONY: when I first read nietzsche, I thought what a powerful, manly, courageous thinker - what nouse! but when I read about the person himself, diseased, lonely, ugly, reclusive, physically weak, (miller even described his appearence as 'effeminant' and there is some evidence which suggests that he was gay) eventually riddled with syphilis and pronounced insane....I think to myself: what do a philosopher's words 'reflect?' what reality? what truth? clearly the manifestation of his life in nature - beyond the mere abstraction of words - was in fact the sum total of almost everything he opposed...this raises another question: just how seriously should we take philosophers?

if jesus was indeed a real person and if only half the stories about him are true, it seems he went further than nietzsche ever went, albeit in another direction...he also 'enbodied' his his teachings - he lived what he taught....

[zarathustra]

Q....fuck mate, get down off ya soap-box...have you stopped pissing, shitting, masturbating - hey? no, well, you're still just a boring old carbon unit...lost in the nature of cause and effect forever...sooner or later, all you are and do will be nothing but cosmic dust...lighten up....

[zarathustra]

Q....fuck mate, get down off ya soap-box...have you stopped pissing, shitting, masturbating - hey? no, well, you're still just a boring old carbon unit...

[David Quinn]

zarathustra wrote:

Q....fuck mate, get down off ya soap-box...

And you haven't been your own soap-box? Come on, mate, get real.

have you stopped pissing, shitting, masturbating - hey? no, well, you're still just a boring old carbon unit...lost in the nature of cause and effect forever...sooner or later, all you are and do will be nothing but cosmic dust...lighten up ....

Well, that's a great argument.

Zarathustra: Hey Albert, you theories on relativity are completely wrong!

Einstein: Eh? Why is that?

Zarathustra: Because you piss, shit and masturbate just like the rest of us!

-

I mean, really, your hatred of truth must be really profound for you to resort to such low-brow tactics.

-

[David Quinn]

zarathustra wrote:

do our conclusions about nature through philosophising
reflect the reality of nature accurately?

They do if they're rational and wise.

is it possible to be totally objective about such conclusions?

Yes, so long as we shed our emotional attachments and biases.

if cause and effect go on ad infinitum, if within this context, we deduce certain things, would such deductions be true for everyone, or only for one's self?

Philosophical truths apply to everyone, without exception.

in the context of Nature as Q sees it, what is the nature of good and evil? do they in fact exist? do they have a use by date? if yes - then when? why?

Good and evil are subjective. There is no such thing as an objective good or an objective evil.

For example, I have decided that anything which promotes wisdom is good, and anything that hinders it is evil. But that is merely my own subjective whim. It has no objective basis.

when nietzsche and others speak of going beyond good and evil
what do they mean?

They are refering to the act of transcending conventional morality via a higher understanding. Anyone who opens his mind to the Infinite automatically transcends good and evil.

how much of an authority are they? what are their credentials?

The rationality of their thinking is their credentials.

IRONY: when I first read nietzsche, I thought what a powerful, manly, courageous thinker - what nouse! but when I read about the person himself, diseased, lonely, ugly, reclusive, physically weak, (miller even described his appearence as 'effeminant' and there is some evidence which suggests that he was gay) eventually riddled with syphilis and pronounced insane....

Are you trying to be as shallow as you can possibly be? Most of these things are either irrelevant, or the product of unsubstantiated rumours. They have no bearing upon the loftiness of his thought.

-