Poison for the Heart - and Women

[Tomas]

.




Dan Rowden -- Other than those rare husbands who happen to have wives with stable and predictable personalities the general male experience is that of never knowing what the hell to expect - or what kind of man to be.

-tomas-
The rare husband and (rare?) wife combination is indeed, few and far between... .01%

Yup, i know, i "lucked out" on finding my soulmate. No screaming, yelling , or elses, hand raising, etc.



-Dan-
In some ways men are simple creatures. They are mostly predictable.

-tomas-
Yeah, better safe than sorry.





-Dan-
In relationships men are constantly made to feel inadequate or uncaring because they are not meeting - or worse still, predicting a woman's needs and desires.

-tomas-
One of her sisters is a set-up artist :-(




-Dan-
The fact that she can't predict them either is something only nasty men-folk like me ever raise.

-tomas-
They won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.




-Dan-
This is one area where men exist in constant conflict about their partners. They love her, yet hate her inconsistencies and endless needs.

-tomas-
Can i get an amen?





-Dan-
Their love remains only to the degree that the woman manages to maintain her connection to his idealised "woman". When a woman becomes comfortable in a relationship her natural tendency to live to this ideal fades.

-tomas-
Nuttin' to add here.




-Dan-
The flip side for the woman is a man whose blind devotion and focussed attention has slipped away. Should their relationship not have developed certain comfortable habits - enveloped in a reasonable measure of security and material comfort - that more or less replace these dynamics, their relationship is doomed.

-tomas-
Yeah it's reached the 50/50 limit of should i stay or should i go.




-Dan-
One of the funniest, and yet disturbing things about watching couples who have been together 10 years or so is the the totally formulaic nature of their dialogues. It's like they're on auto-pilot spitting out scripts they've learned. This is how habit and routine overcomes romance entropy.

-tomas-
Sure, one of my (first-hired) employees, Myrna, and her husband Fred, (retired a couple years back, but still on retainer) are the stereotypical couple who have always gotten along, in public anyways. They don't feud and no bruises are evident :-)
The heated arguments but that is a natural course of human adventure...

He's a Leo birthsign and she's a Taurus. A very good match, indeed. Churchy type of religion, Methodist, formerly Southern Baptist... you know the real Jesus Christ are their personal, Lord and Saviour blah bla.

But i gotta tell ya, when you need good, solid advice about some business plan - they will tell you straight-out what needs to be done and how to go about it. Ol' Myrna, always gets a good bonus and a fruitcake every year. You can't beat a farmgirl who ate her oats growing up (coincidentally from North Dakota too) and Fred, a good country boy from Tennessee (who also ate his oats growing up).



Thanks, Dan you made my day :-)




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971



.

[Imadrongo]

David is right, a husband is merely a slave for women to provide for her children, and keep her feeling secure, purposeful and emotionally entertained.

Generally speaking, these days I think women get into long term relationships because they love the man. The men likewise love the women. It is beneficial for both of them to get into the relationship. This connection may change after they have been together for awhile, but it isn't like all women are out there to use men and all men are harmless bystanders being taken advantage of.

So either I am an amoral female, too unconscious to even be aware of morality, or I am too hooked on morality.

Hey I am against the whole unconsciousness of woman argument. And I would say most people here are hooked on morality.

If there truly is no better or worse, no greater good, then there necessarily is no wisdom, no such thing as good judgment, no reason for anyone to strive to be anything other than a raccoon.

And no reason not to.... No reason not to have your own subjective values.

[Dan Rowden]

Tomas,

Dan: Other than those rare husbands who happen to have wives with stable and predictable personalities the general male experience is that of never knowing what the hell to expect - or what kind of man to be.

Tomas The rare husband and (rare?) wife combination is indeed, few and far between... .01% Yup, i know, i "lucked out" on finding my soulmate. No screaming, yelling , or elses, hand raising, etc.

You may well have lucked out, however I'm not really talking about the more extreme things you mention there. I'm talking about dynamics that most observers would consider normal for relationship dynamics - normal because they don't or can't see the underlying reality. I'm really talking about the difficulties immediately created when two diversely operative beings try to cooperate or cohabitate or exist in a relationship where one bounces off the other (and no, that's not a horizontal folk dancing pun). To the degree that a man is expressing his masculine side he will tend to be consistent in his manner, in his thinking, his needs, his goals and moods. For a woman it's generally very different. She is more changeable, moody, spontaneous, flowing. She can want a man to be a certain kind of man one minute, and a different kind of man ten of those minutes later. And this doesn't necessitate conflict or obviously bad dynamics in the relationship (because for some reason we seem to think this is totally acceptable); it is just him attempting to meet the multifarious states of desire that constitute her everyday reality. For her, the problem is his inability to do so.

In the courtship phase men are so bug-eyed with love and lust that they don't really even see this happening. Men are far more spontaneous themselves in this phase. They go with her flow because to please her is to win her. When the relationship begins to settle into routines the man finds himself again. His heady daze dissipates and his more steady state existence returns. This is when things start to become problematic because the woman's nature hasn't - and won't - really change at all. In courtship everything a woman does is proof of her embodiment of all that is attractive and virtuous in Woman. It doesn't matter if it isn't because this is what the man wants to see and will see even if it kills him (or her). But I would suggest this phase doesn't last all that long. Once the woman has accepted the man it begins to disappear and the man starts to bring his own nature to the relationship table. In courtship, a man, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist. In this phase most men begin to channel Errol Flynn. They become an actor playing a role, reading their scripts and never missing a director's cue. But once the bond is made and the credits start to roll the man then starts to think - "Ok, what the fuck now? Where's my script for the sequel?" He does this because deep down he knows he's been playing a role to achieve a certain end. With that end in sight it's much harder to stay in character. One's own self slowly emerges. And that self is a being with his own mind, goals, principles, desires, timetables, notions etc. Here begins dynamical conflict.

His mate had been his leading lady. Now that he's out of role playing mode she is just a ball of wants and demands and needs that he now has to make a real effort to idealise. Men are not hesitant to make a marriage vow because they fear commitment; they are hesitant because part of them has awoken to certain realities, and those realties conflict with their ideations of her. He can't bring himself to entertain the notion that his ideations have been false along because that would make him look stupid and somewhat pathetic (which he is) but would also cause a significant part of his mental world to cave in. This is where the idealisation of the marriage and family institution begins (i.e. more deeply in his own mind and not just as a natural consequence of social conditioning - young men are happy to speak cynically of such things). I sometimes wonder if the reason many men seem to faint at their weddings isn't because of an unexpected moment of lucidity. Ok, well, I know it isn't the reason, but I'll toss it in for the comedic value. You are laughing, aren't you?

So, anyway, before I ramble my way into November: from here on in you see the problem of two distinct modes of operating - one flowing and spontaneous, the other more consistent and structured - finding themselves largely unable to meet the needs and modes of the other. Men can't be all things in all moments but are expected to be and chastised for not being. Women can't be different either and are likewise chastised for it. The dynamics this causes and the compromises people go through to try and make things "work" is the subject of a tome that would be of considerable proportions. I think it should be titled: "When Harry Met Sally - Not"

Thanks, Dan you made my day :-)

You callin' me a punk, Callahan?

[David Quinn]

James wrote:

Apart from maybe Elizabeth, we just briefly touch on it. It is not ever really examined in great detail. The QRS don't want to talk about it, they just offer the same old "yeah sure, we accept that, but..." one liners, and immediately go back to throwing all the blame on woman.

Firstly, no one is blaming anything on anyone. So we can put that one to bed.

Secondly, men are being criticized on the forum all the time for their behaviours - e.g. being deluded, getting married, becoming academics, becoming postmodernists, joining religions, lying, erecting mental blocks, etc.

Thirdly, men's selfishness and violence towards women is obvious for all to see and constantly remarked upon in this world. By contrast, the flaws of feminine behaviour are almost never discussed at all. It is utterly taboo for society to talk about it. The forum is just a small attempt on our parts to redress the balance.

Personally, I would detest a world where women were not feminine. I don't desire it at all, though I do desire the limitations of femininty to be recognised, and I don't want them in control.

Talk about fucking total boredom - and blokes would start killing each other left right and centre. There would be no other game in town but the Power game.

Agreed, that is one the biggest failings of men, and the source of all misogyny in this world. Men desperately need women to remain sexy, feminine, passive and ditzy, otherwise they would go out of their minds in sheer boredom.

It says something, doesn't it.

-

[Imadrongo]

Agreed, that is one the biggest failings of men, and the source of all misogyny in this world. Men desperately need women to remain sexy, feminine, passive and ditzy, otherwise they would go out of their minds in sheer boredom.

It says something, doesn't it.

It says something that you want to call these natural processes a failing. All birds and mammals and most insects have techniques where the best males and females get the most or the healthiest or the best mates. And usually this amounts to proving oneself in a fight, showing off one's odor or colors or music, or holding great territory. This is beneficial for the survival and positive advancement of their species. The weak males will get less [desirable] females and their genes won't be passed on as well whereas the strongest members of each sex will pass on their genes the most successfully.

It sure says something when we start calling this a failing. What would be better David? I know that the worldly survival and advancement of a strong human race doesn't matter through the eyes of the enlightened sage. But would it be better for humanity to stagnate? In my mind from the enlightened sage's point of view it shouldn't matter, he should be impartial (from the sage p.o.v at least), but since you guys throw in morality and non-suffering into enlightenment, plus the "survival of wisdom", you reach the conclusion that we should become as unnatural as possible.

[Kevin Solway]

the strongest members of each sex will pass on their genes the most successfully.

It sure says something when we start calling this a failing.

What would you prefer, truth, or mere animal survival?

Should we uphold the rape, imprisonment, and torture of women as a virtue, because it enables strong men to pass on their genes?

Would it be better for humanity to stagnate?

It needs the proper management of sages. It's too important a thing to leave in the hands of animal-men and women.

you reach the conclusion that we should become as unnatural as possible.

There's no such thing as "unnatural". Anything that happens is perfectly natural, since Nature caused it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Look, I don't think it's beneficial to wisdom to use the word "woman" when "unconscious" is what is meant, and I agree that they go over the top - but as long as feminism is waving a flag, we have to make room for masculinism to counter-balance that. I don't think that masculinism is any more right than feminism, and they both need to be archived, but so long as there is a need for the masculinism movement, Kevin's probably the most ethical guy for the job.

Woman has all but zero relationship to any conventional "masculinist" movement. It is not, repeat not a reaction or attempted "counter-balance" to feminism. If you think so, then you are proving that you don't really understand it. Or, maybe you simply have an agenda to try and discredit it and disinformation is part of that agenda. Either way it's wrong.

The forum is just a small attempt on our parts to redress the balance.

Uh-huh.

[DHodges]

you reach the conclusion that we should become as unnatural as possible.

In some ways, yes. We need to transcend that part of our nature that is most bovine.

When it comes to sex and power, the things that are most "natural" are not thought about rationally. They are almost programmed at a pre-rational level, nearly instinctual.

That evolution strongly prefers something gives it no moral weight. You can not think rationally without thinking beyond perfecting your plumage.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Originally I was going to put this on the In the News thread, but since the opinion has come up (again) here that it is okay to rape women - I thought it important to show a real-life example of what this kind of attitude results in:

Because enough people think it's okay to rape women.

It was bad enough that the stupid manager thought it was appropriate to strip search her employee on the say-so of a supposed cop on the phone, but the psychology behind the boyfriend of the manager who thought it was okay to rape this girl because his girlfriend said the police said to do it, well that's the sort of thing I have been fighting to prevent.

Elizabeth is merely reacting personally to them, as she has done previously.

The ugliness as linked to above happens in various forms to a lot more people than what makes it into the news. I'm surprised that this girl actually got a lawsuit out of it. Usually, there is just a "blame the victim" response, make her feel bad or even punish her for "letting this happen" to her, while her family and personal friends shun her. This is not me "merely reacting personally" - this is me pointing at reality.

Or Ryan - would you say that the girl upset about being wrongfully strip searched and raped was "merely reacting personally" because she is "too unconscious to realize the bigger picture" in this?

[Tomas]

.


Now there are a couple-few mental cases (on worldly matters) suggesting, implying whatever that rape is a normal part of human evolution?

So, some security guard who is hired to safeguard property... but not a fellow human crying out for help? I was hired to watch property but not human suffering. Look the other way, I don't wanna get involved. Just call for backup after the jugular's been slit and the body has stopped twitching.

At what age do these mental cases suggest rape is over the top? - or is it that anything goes? Grandma in the nursing home is fair game, why not grandpa too? Ten-year-old Billy or eight-year-old Suzy can be had?

I've a 1st cousin, Mark (with college degree), who was a security guard back in the early '90s who was hired to guard some naval facility in Washington state. There were intruders left and right but he never once got out of his vehicle (despite having a pistol) always used his walkie-talkie for backup. Of course, by the time the Everett metro police showed - the thieves were long gone. Why get involved? Let the insurance company pick up the tab! Another slacker.

The loser lived with his parents til he was 26. The parent paid for everything.

Joined the Army and progressed to Sergeant with a stint in South Korea where he'd hire 10 hookers at once, you know they are cheap, dime a dozen girls, probably under-age, but who cares! - they asked for it!

Ended up at Ft. Carson, Colorado where some overweight fellow soldier, hit on him and they got married. They got discharged when their term of enlistment was up, moved back to Washington, she got pregnant, he suggested an abortion, well, that "marriage" was over before it began. He ran up $40,000-plus in credit card debts. He hasn't talked to his "son" Blaine, since 1997.

The fool moved back to North Dakota (1994), moved back in with his parents, got a job in the local porn shop, made good money ($1,700 a month) a couple DUI's, still into hookers as he was always incapable of a normal relationship. He started out a homosexual-type of boy till about age-24. Also, the kid started jacking off his dog, masturbating at age-11 and hasn't stopped last i heard he's now age-48. No doubt whatsoever he's had the clap, syph, and probably gonnorhea, etc.

Anyway, he harrassed his parents (threats and nomative types of violence tossed in for good measure) placed his mother, Doris, (my moms sister) on psychiatric drug Atavan (Lorazapam types) and had her repeatedly commited at the local psych ward and turned his attentions to getting the family farm from his father, Hildor, worth about $1.5 million. One thing leads to another, he had her placed in a long-term nursing facility where even more powerful psych drugs became available and used on her. She died a zombie in 2004.

Then it was his dad's turn and the Atavan (Lorazapam) games began all over, go him to sign some papers making him sole executor (shutting his brother, Wendell, out of any financial doings) and the money started flowing his way. His dad died a few months later in early 2005.

His first adventure (with the money) took him to China where his first order of business was procuring hookers, and lots of them. On to Russia blowing money on any and all things of pleasure. On to Central American "nations" with probably more girls (ages unknown, of course!) More places, buys "friends" with money.

He's suggested, thru some phone calls, to "rent" a room at my home - no way! Oh, now he's living in some $400 a month apartment, near the train depot (replete with locomotive whistles blaring), in Fargo, North Dakota. The "inheritance money" being squandered on who knows what. Oh yeah, he's on Atavan (Lorazapam) himself. 320 pounds of overweight fat-slob of a guy. Mentally deluded to the max.

Sounds to me as if 'security guards' are a thief unto themselves... losers.




Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason



.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

Or Ryan - would you say that the girl upset about being wrongfully strip searched and raped was "merely reacting personally" because she is "too unconscious to realize the bigger picture" in this?

Elizabeth, I doubt anyone on GF believes that raping women is an acceptable behavior, except for maybe Neil who has denied the existence of the conscience so that he doesn’t have to live up to the responsibility of truth.

Moreover, Part of the focus on femininity is designed to enable men have the strength to break away from the habitual patterns of using women merely as sex slaves, in exchange for material benefits, which is the arrangement in most marriages. It is ironic that you are fighting against a philosophy that actually supports the outcome you’d like to see, namely less sexual abuse of women.

You do this all the time Elizabeth, you attack the very truths that solve the problems you are fighting against…

Jamesh wrote:

Personally, I would detest a world where women were not feminine.

That is because you are still bewitched by worldly femininity, if you analyze all the plight, child labor, extra hours of working, suffering and so on that is responsible for women looking pretty, and if you understood the sheer magnitude of it, the enormous amount of blood, sweat and soul that goes into making these silly creatures look the way they do, then you would quickly change your tune.

Jamesh wrote:

There would be no other game in town but the Power game.

Let us not forget that men play the power game in order to get women. If men no longer want women, there is no longer a reason for them to compete for power with other men.

Jamesh wrote:

There is of course some chance that in the future, well after the deaths of the QRS, when the current unsustainable materialism really bites back hard, that their philosophy will come into it's time.

I think as science progresses, women and men as reproductive couples will become obsolete, and bio-engineering will be used to create genius on the planet, and the truths of masculinity/femininity will become very useful at that time in relationship to neuroscience, genetics and endocrinology. Women will be slowly phased out of existence, and men will be engineering totally different as well, the end result will probably be an asexual being, no longer recognizable as a man.

Lets face it; the human being as it exists now is a dinosaur. And as these dinosaurs blindly frolic around in the jungles, a large meteorite of wisdom approaches the planet at an ever-accelerating speed.

[tooyi]

Let us not forget that men play the power game in order to get women. If men no longer want women, there is no longer a reason for them to compete for power with other men.

The music video I posted to "music that moves" is an example of the motor that drives the power game. That anyone can be blind to the causes of it existing is understandable but detrimental to the development of wisdom. As I said in connection with the link, the hellish overtones on the video are not an accident. When the subconscious knows it is dealing with the denial of reality the perversion becomes complete.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I doubt anyone on GF believes that raping women is an acceptable behavior

Uh-huh - just like the McManager thought that the assistant manager and the employee weren't dumb enough to fall for the hoax, so she didn't bother to pass on the warning.

In other testimony, the former manager of the Bullitt County restaurant said she didn’t pass on a company voice mail about the hoax caller to her assistant managers who ran the store the night Ogborn was assaulted, because she didn’t think it was important.

“I didn’t think Donna and Kim were dumb enough to fall for it,” Lisa Siddons said

Never underestimate the sheer stupidity of people.

Part of the focus on femininity is designed to enable men have the strength to break away from the habitual patterns of using women merely as sex slaves, in exchange for material benefits, which is the arrangement in most marriages. It is ironic that you are fighting against a philosophy that actually supports the outcome you’d like to see

I recognize that is the intent, which is why I even bother trying to explain what I'm trying to explain. The problem is that the presentation has some flaws in the design resulting in the opposite of the intent too frequently.

[tooyi]

I recognize that is the intent, which is why I even bother trying to explain what I'm trying to explain. The problem is that the presentation has some flaws in the design resulting in the opposite of the intent too frequently.

There are no flaws in the presentation. What you are doing is talk about saving the tree from rot by using some conditioner to treat the leaves to make it look better. Your supposed to cut the tree. Anything that deals with something else but cutting the whole tree down is a waste.

What you are trying to save is the very thing that powers the whole thing. If you can't deal with it harshly on every aspect you are making concessions every step of the way. The only thing you seem to want to treat are the symptoms while embracing the disease.

[Imadrongo]

Kevin,

What would you prefer, truth, or mere animal survival?

Truth is a tool of survival. Without survival there is no truth.

Should we uphold the rape, imprisonment, and torture of women as a virtue, because it enables strong men to pass on their genes?

What is the alternative? -- to ban it because it makes you feel icky. "Truth" is no argument against any of these.

NM: Would it be better for humanity to stagnate?

KS: It needs the proper management of sages. It's too important a thing to leave in the hands of animal-men and women.

Now it is important? I thought truth was the only important thing 2 lines up. Management by sages -- sounds like a boring, uneventful, non-suffering life. Good thing it will never happen.

DHodges,

When it comes to sex and power, the things that are most "natural" are not thought about rationally. They are almost programmed at a pre-rational level, nearly instinctual.

That evolution strongly prefers something gives it no moral weight. You can not think rationally without thinking beyond perfecting your plumage.

Thinking rationally is just a much more diverse way of perfecting your plumage that has evolved in human beings.

Elizabeth,

since the opinion has come up (again) here that it is okay to rape women - I thought it important to show a real-life example of what this kind of attitude results in:

Because enough people think it's okay to rape women.

Since when do we appeal to emotions here?

Ryan,

Elizabeth, I doubt anyone on GF believes that raping women is an acceptable behavior, except for maybe Neil who has denied the existence of the conscience so that he doesn’t have to live up to the responsibility of truth.

"Truth" is not the source of responsibility. What is the source of this responsibility you speak of, which you believe to be true responsibility?

[skipair]

There are no flaws in the presentation. What you are doing is talk about saving the tree from rot by using some conditioner to treat the leaves to make it look better. Your supposed to cut the tree. Anything that deals with something else but cutting the whole tree down is a waste.

In my experience this is how most people come to understand the woman material - step by step, and not necessarily liking what the next step looks like. Thats definitely how it was for me. I had my "Woman enlightenment" after about two years of mulling it over with increasing intensity. Toward the end it was more or less all out devotion. Throughout the way I could talk about it in an empirical or anecdotal sense, but after the FLASH all the truth came flooding in. It is not obvious, yet clearly apparent. Ultimately, you either "get this", or you don't. Not an easy process.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I recognize that is the intent, which is why I even bother trying to explain what I'm trying to explain. The problem is that the presentation has some flaws in the design resulting in the opposite of the intent too frequently.

There are no flaws in the presentation. What you are doing is talk about saving the tree from rot by using some conditioner to treat the leaves to make it look better. Your supposed to cut the tree. Anything that deals with something else but cutting the whole tree down is a waste.

What you are trying to save is the very thing that powers the whole thing. If you can't deal with it harshly on every aspect you are making concessions every step of the way. The only thing you seem to want to treat are the symptoms while embracing the disease.

Of course. You mean like this:

Women will be slowly phased out of existence

I'm dealing with reality in the here-and-now. Sure, if there were no women, no women would be raped - but men get raped too, so if there were no women or men, no women or men would get raped. I am cutting out the diseased tree, but you are trying to eliminate the entire forest.

Since when do we appeal to emotions here?

Oh, lovely. "Appeal to emotion" does not include arguing against the crux of the problem. Appeal to emotion appeals to emotion instead of using valid logic, and is in the category of red herring. A common effect of rape is quite negative - and since it is common, it is not a red herring.

[Imadrongo]

Elizabeth,

RR: Women will be slowly phased out of existence

E: I'm dealing with reality in the here-and-now. Sure, if there were no women, no women would be raped - but men get raped too, so if there were no women or men, no women or men would get raped. I am cutting out the diseased tree, but you are trying to eliminate the entire forest.

Interesting analogy. Moralists want to cut out their diseased trees to make life "better". I believe morality is a weakness and don't want to objectively condemn any tree because I realize making the forest homogeneous would hardly count as "better". And the geniuses here want to cut down the whole forest in the name of "truth" since it is just an illusion.

NM: Since when do we appeal to emotions here?

E: Oh, lovely. "Appeal to emotion" does not include arguing against the crux of the problem.
...
A common effect of rape is quite negative - and since it is common, it is not a red herring.

You posted an emotional story about rape. It is only a problem from the emotional point of view. Therefore it is an appeal to emotion. I see no real problem with the article you posted, though it was a little disturbing.

[tooyi]

I wasn't talking about morality. "Better" is irrelevant. Understanding the causes is relevant.

[DHodges]

Thinking rationally is just a much more diverse way of perfecting your plumage that has evolved in human beings.

That's an idea that's come up before - although not recently, that I recall. And it is mostly true.

Similarly, a lot of men get into playing music because they think it will get them laid. For many, that is the primary motivation. But some few move beyond that and actually get into music, and make music for themselves, for its own sake, not to impress women.

And for most, rationality is nothing more than a tool - it is only of interest to the extent that is useful in obtaining sex, food, money and so on. But some few go deeper than that and recognize the key relationship that rationality has to sanity. They become interested in rationality itself, for its own sake.

[Matt Gregory]

And that's what men are capable of and women are not.

[Imadrongo]

DHodges,

NM: Thinking rationally is just a much more diverse way of perfecting your plumage that has evolved in human beings.

DH: That's an idea that's come up before - although not recently, that I recall. And it is mostly true.

Similarly, a lot of men get into playing music because they think it will get them laid. For many, that is the primary motivation. But some few move beyond that and actually get into music, and make music for themselves, for its own sake, not to impress women.

And for most, rationality is nothing more than a tool - it is only of interest to the extent that is useful in obtaining sex, food, money and so on. But some few go deeper than that and recognize the key relationship that rationality has to sanity. They become interested in rationality itself, for its own sake.

In smaller animals natural selection caused them to be highly efficient at reproducing, surviving, and adapting. Human beings don't have much stress on us and thus we aren't really evolving much through strict natural selection these days. If we were under more stressing conditions the ones that didn't use rationality for survival and reproduction would be removed from the gene pool. But as it is, we have too many humans already and thus people are just sitting around wondering what to do next, trying to be "happy" in their meaningless and often suffering lives. Now we are using our tools to make us happy and to try and give us some meaning to life since the game of survival amongst wild animals has been won -- now it is the game of survival against nothingness. One strategy that arises here is to forfeit to nothingness join its ranks, helping to reap the remaining living souls on earth.

The point I want to make is that rationality used to be a tool for perfecting one's plumage (survival ability, desirability, reproductive success) and in a way it still is. Today it has turned into a way to provide meaning and happiness to one's life, to escape suffering -- to improve one's own life. Whether this satisfies one's ego, comforts one, or helps one get women is all the same. Perhaps it even goes under the guise of helping others, but really it is only done because it helps the self. There is no "rationality in itself".

Similarly there is no "music in itself". People play music for a variety of reasons, but nobody does it for no reason at all, and music itself isn't a reason. Some play music for fame, some for enjoyment, some because it satisfies them, some for women, some for money, some because they feel like they have some purpose in life when they are doing things for others, some because they have nothing else to do, some because they think the Gods like it, etc.

Matt,

And that's what men are capable of and women are not.

Men are capable of deluding themselves into thinking they are doing "rationality in itself" whereas they are really just doing something required for their optimal survival. Women are capable of doing similar things though they are usually (in the women I have observed) along the lines of "helping others in itself" rather than "rationality in itself". Either way they are selfish actions under the guise of "selfless" actions (these don't exist), and they are intricately linked with moral people who believe that selfishness is bad, who are usually people who couldn't surivive well any other way.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Neil,

Moralists want to cut out their diseased trees to make life "better". I believe morality is a weakness and don't want to objectively condemn any tree because I realize making the forest homogeneous would hardly count as "better". And the geniuses here want to cut down the whole forest in the name of "truth" since it is just an illusion.

Having a conscience in the form of a sensitive subjective moral center is what separates us from the animals. Your reluctance to acknowledge the importance of discerning inferior from superior behavior is quite the mental block, to steal Quinn's terminology.

You’ve been influenced by too much academic philosophy. Liberal societies that value hedonism and the illusion of free will like to believe in this stuff. However, It is wise to value overcoming the inferiority of the species, and I believe that it can be done in the most humane way possible. Genocide and killing is not necessary, it can be accomplished slowly through having a society where larger numbers value a path to perfection, instead of being content with the inferiority that is rampant all around us. As a species, we revel in our own inferiority like pigs do in their own feces. And we are too cowardly to admit it to ourselves because the ramifications are too great.

Many British secularists have already begun this trend by attacking the inferiority of people that blindly believe in religious dogma, and so I believe that attacking the inferiority of femininity is just taking the criticism to the next level, although at the present time, most humans are still too weak minded to even stomach this material because they value deluded activities such as romantic love, happiness, and financial success.

The world would be much wiser if large numbers were able to see that indulging in activities like romantic love is a dishonest activity. True philosophy ends when romantic love begins, the two never go together. They are like water and oil. If you wish to have a dreadful intellectual conversation, pick a married man that has lived happily with his wife for over ten years.

Any honest man will be running out of that place before the coffee finishes percolating. That’s probably one of the reasons why Diogenes lived in a barrel, all the houses were filled up to the brim with dishonest married couples.

[Imadrongo]

Ryan,

You’ve been influenced by too much academic philosophy.

Barely any academic philosophy influence on me at all....

Liberal societies that value hedonism and the illusion of free will like to believe in this stuff.

Why not? "Truth" is your form of hedonism as is the illusion of non-free will.

However, It is wise to value overcoming the inferiority of the species, and I believe that it can be done in the most humane way possible.

I believe "humane" is the inferiority of the species, so no, it could not be overcome in a "humane" way.

Genocide and killing is not necessary, it can be accomplished slowly through having a society where larger numbers value a path to perfection

A forest where larger and larger numbers of trees poison themselves... such a "humane" way to end all the illusions... -- yet ridiculous.

And we are too cowardly to admit it to ourselves because the ramifications are too great.

Speak for yourself and I agree with you.... :)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Neil,

I believe "humane" is the inferiority of the species, so no, it could not be overcome in a "humane" way.

When you first started coming on the forum, you posted how you believed violent action was in order to make the world a better place. So you are a hypocrite Neil, you cannot make the world a better place without having some conception of inferior and superior, some conception of humane.

A will to power in order to change things, implies a conception of humane.

So now you’re flip flopping your original thoughts, do you realize that you have no consistency in your thinking?

Why not? "Truth" is your form of hedonism as is the illusion of non-free will.

I already told you many times, but you don't seem capable of understanding, a wise man reaps very little pleasure from speaking the truth, it becomes automatic.