The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

[Leyla Shen]

AJ: "Here on this list we note certain persons whose idea structures are...well...neo-fascistic for want of a better word."

Yes, in your tremendous unconsciousness, you leave a lot for the wanting, Alex.

Dan: "That's a pretty big claim. Can you give examples?"

Dickhead: The examples I would provide are to be found in specific formulations I have encountered on this forum since I joined. My first conversations were with Leyla. Those posts are there and can be read. I have seen a general similar trend in the ideas expressed here, but it would take me a while to pick through and present them to you. Do you really want me to do that, or is that an eristical tactic?

I argue against the foundation for the nation of Israel and, in doing so, paraphrase in part the very founder of communism (much maligned and misunderstood) and you call me a Neo-fascist? Nothing but an emotional epithet used like the Star of David branding not me and my failures in reason but you and your empty head. More evidence of your emotionalism and lack of ability to think clearly, because you are a “victimised” Jew by virtue of heredity.

Personally, I think you meant Neo-Nazi---but, like most things, you find it very difficult to prove--very difficult, if not impossible, to articulate, especially logically! So you went for the next best emotional thing, only to have the same problem.

Anyone can throw out a bunch of "ideas" (which, in your case, are henids) into the ether waiting, hoping that someone else will sanctify them for you. It's clarifying them into clear patterns of thought in one's own mind that is the difference between sanity and unconsciousness; between creation and absorption. Unfortunately, you lack a mind of your own--you have the mind of a Jew, and are incapable of anything more. For that reason, I shall star as a leading character--an antagonist to be overcome by any means at your disposal except reason--in your desperately puny mind. For that reason, you will never be anything more.

[Imadrongo]

"You have clearly misread Nietzsche if you think his intent or desire is for a world without suffering."

Suffering will come, one way or the other. I think the Tragic position, the Tragic viewpoint, is the best refuge, myself. Although all that you say is true, what do you yourself want to be a part of? What are you willing to give yourself up to? That is really the most important question.

From De Rerum Natura by Lucretius:

'Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds
Roll up its waste of waters, from the land
To watch another's labouring anguish far,
Not that we joyously delight that man
Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet
To mark what evils we ourselves be spared;
'Tis sweet, again, to view the mighty strife
Of armies embattled yonder o'er the plains,
Ourselves no sharers in the peril; but naught
There is more goodly than to hold the high
Serene plateaus, well fortressed by the wise,
Whence thou may'st look below on other men
And see them ev'rywhere wand'ring, all dispersed
In their lone seeking for the road of life;
Rivals in genius, or emulous in rank,
Pressing through days and nights with hugest toil
For summits of power and mastery of the world.
O wretched minds of men! O blinded hearts!
In how great perils, in what darks of life
Are spent the human years, however brief!
___________________________________________

"As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods.
They kill us for their sport.

---King Lear

Well what is the point? I agree that this is the main question. Is the point to sit by the shore and watch the wretched men, or is the point to do something of your own? The irony of this whole poem is that whoever wrote it did not in fact idle around watching wretched people. He was not the idler, in fact his will to power has effected many people. Yet he teaching... to be an idler?! Is this not what the Buddha and this forum would fit into?

Nietzsche on the other hand is much above this. He understands this passiveness and renounces it. He doesn't preach the opposite of what he does as this poet does. He is active and preaches activeness; the poet is active and preaches idleness!

Flies to the Gods? Oh how tragic it must be when people understand this and then decide that they should idle around and do nothing. Perhaps they will even try to seek some "mystical union" with the Gods. When man realizes this he does not become a God; to delude himself into thinking he has must put on a great show.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

and you conflate all that is lowly and destructive with the feminine.

No, we conflate all that is unconscious with the feminine.

If all that you mean is unconscious, say "unconscious." If you talk about how bad unconsciousness is directly then you would go a lot further to raising consciousness. By renaming unconsciousness "feminine" or "woman" you raise beliefs that the masculine and men are better just because of gender.

You squeeze into your philosophy that there are some things that women are better suited for, but by saying the things women are better suited for are unconscious activities, and that unconsciousness is bad, you are by default saying that women are bad. It does not take a giant leap to then connect how bad people should be treated. Therein lies the danger.

Neil it totally wrong about Nietzsche, but Hitler wasn't as bad as he is made out to be.

So the logic follows that since women are bad, but Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, women are worse than Hitler. Nice.

[Dan Rowden]

That is purely idiotic.

[xerox]

...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

mothers need to stop raising their sons to be these sort of men.

This is true.

Its amusing how women will take credit for the good stuff men do, but not the bad stuff.

A woman should not take credit for either the good stuff or the bad stuff. The credit and blame lands squarely on the individual. Others are contributing factors, but are neither creditworthy nor blameworthy of the final, overall product.

[Alex Jacob]

"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go."

--Hamlet
___________________________________________________

"Was ever woman in this humour woo'd?
Was ever woman in this humour won?"

---King Richard III

Lelya, you have cruelly wounded me, more deeply than ever before, I really don't deserve this, you might as well wish for me:

"...wolves, spiders and toads, or any creeping venomed thing that lives..."

But before this goes too far, I said, or meant to say, that in these pages I think I identify some 'neo-fascistic' formulations, and I am especially concerned with some of the racial and gender ideas that I have encountered here. What you are, or what is your core ideology, Leyla, I really can't say, and I don't have the time (or interest) to read your 1880 posts to find out. If I have misidentified your ideas or anyone else's I may back away from that statement as I get clearer, or perhaps I won't (as I get clearer).

"Personally, I think you meant Neo-Nazi---but, like most things, you find it very difficult to prove--very difficult, if not impossible, to articulate, especially logically! So you went for the next best emotional thing, only to have the same problem."

Hmmmmm. There are a few things that comes to my mind. If your purposes are purely 'logical', and if 'logic' is the ultimate deciding factor for you, or your preferred activity with which to deal with life, comprehend life, then I can merely mark that. As of yet, as far as I am aware, I have not yet come out with a positive doctrine, a positive and definitive statement or conclusion about anything: neither about Jews, Israel, race or gender. In my recent posts I have alluded to some thoughts about this list and some of the people who write here, but I have not sought to 'prove' anything, and frankly I am not certain if I will take that route.

Henids: cognitive emotions.

http://www.phlogma.com/aporia/wein/sc/chap-ii3.htm

How about this?

"I stand for the heart. To the dogs with the head! I had rather be a fool with a heart, than Jupiter Olympus with his head. The reason the mass of men fear God, and at bottom dislike Him, is because they rather distrust His heart, and fancy Him all brain like a watch."

---Herman Melville

I have a strong intuitive feeling that if we are not expressing the best part of our human selves through our whole being, and through our cognition, we are very likely moving off track, and the results of this are never good. I think that indicates a sort of schizophrenia, and maybe this is fundamentally a core problem, and perhaps one reason why there are such things as Nazi states, virulent and devastating outbreaks of social madness. If it serves you to divorce yourself from your feeling, from 'the feminine', with whatever supporting ideology you assemble around it---have at it! But my project is not your project, and my project is now and will always be (insofar as this is possible) separate and distinct from the ideology of this list, group agreements, psychological agreements.

[Alex Jacob]

Neil wrote:

"Well what is the point? I agree that this is the main question. Is the point to sit by the shore and watch the wretched men, or is the point to do something of your own?"

You have no choice but to 'do something on your own', and in my way of thinking the individual, yourself, is all you really have to work with. And you can do anything you want, anything. It is the nature of the place that you have freedom. I mentioned to you (in PM) that I thought 'coming into contact with ideas is similar to coming into contact with 'sprits'. The area where ideas take place, have effect, is in our psyches, so it is especially---crucially---important what is the mediating or interpreting ideological 'lens' that is positioned there. I don't think either that we can deny 'the psychological' (the unconscious, etc.) but there are difiiculties in talking about that.

"Nietzsche on the other hand is much above this. He understands this passiveness and renounces it. He doesn't preach the opposite of what he does as this poet does. He is active and preaches activeness; the poet is active and preaches idleness!"

It seems to me that Nietzsche recognizes that it is only, or predominantly, action and activity that has molded the world, and I think he identifies this creative spirit as the more important thing. He certainly takes issue with a mediocre spirit being 'privelaged' as against the creative spirit. But I also see Nietzsche as 'suffering' as he is drawn between the two extremes, the Appolonian and the Dionesian, the mental and the physical, the passive and the active. I don't think Nietzsche has solved any of these issues for us, I think he has laid them bare and open for us to look at. And different people, different intellects, have interpreted Nietzsche in different ways. Nietzsche decides nothing, and his interpreters are just offering their opinions, as you are, as I am.

"Flies to the Gods? Oh how tragic it must be when people understand this and then decide that they should idle around and do nothing. Perhaps they will even try to seek some "mystical union" with the Gods. When man realizes this he does not become a God; to delude himself into thinking he has must put on a great show."

I know that mystical union is one way of expressing a relationship to the Divine, the idea of 'merging with the Divine'. I don't think the idea is very realistic, though. A more powerful idea is serving the Divine, while being fully engaged in one's life in life and life's activities. If you must know, my own position is essentially religious, or there is a background religiosity, but everything hinges on how one interprets the Divine and determines what are and what are not the 'correct' activities. Maybe you are mocking a little bit the idea of 'mystical union' as if it is unreal, unimportant, an illusion, a side-track? You have told me that you were primarily informed by your Christian upbringing and have only recently engaged in reading Nietzsche, who seems to have had a shattering impact on much of what you thought, felt and 'believed' before, is that right? That is one of the main advantages of Nietzsche and coming into contact with contrary groups of ideas: they either redirect one's ideas (and faith) completely, or they help one to identify and strengthen some of those core beliefs (feelings, intuitions). The game ain't over Neil, not at 20 years of age (sorry to sound condescending), it is only beginning and it is a life-long process provided you keep working with ideas.

Quoting Lucretius---well, I did it because I relate to the message in the poem. That is how I see myself. My engagements are of another order, I guess. And yours? I assume you will soon conquer Europe?

Get those sexy black boots polished!

[Alex Jacob]

Dan: No, we conflate all that is unconscious with the feminine.

Elizabeth: If all that you mean is unconscious, say "unconscious."

The Prophet AJ: Maybe it is best to identify:

Conscious men
Unconscious men

Conscious women
Unconscious women

Perhaps it is sophistry and faulty reasoning to equate women with unconsciousness, and man with consciousness. It is an easy fallacy to commit since, a temptation it is true, men have primarily defined intellectual and mental consciousness, and women have defined a consciousness with other focus, until modernity. We may be at the beginning of changes with that dynamic.

I don't either have a problem with probing and sounding out (au Weininger) 'male consciousness' and 'female consciousness', I do suspect there are some differences.

It just seems so simple to me: the danger and folly of attempting to trace fine things with too broad a brush.

[brad walker]

identifying the enemy

[Dan Rowden]

Alex,

Dan: No, it's actually your feeling on the matter. There's no thinking in it that I can discern; it's purely an emotional outpouring."

Alex: Hmmm. Have you a problem in the discernment department? That is a possibility you know.

No, you have a problem in the formulating an argument department. There's nothing there but poetry and insinuation.

Your post starts on this note, your spurious determination that the ideas I expressed (there were many)

No there wasn't. Your post contained one single idea, and a silly one at that.

are not thoughts but feelings. I have no idea how you determine this, do you have some sort of meter? ;^)

I have a bullshitometer. It's alarm goes off every time I see one of your posts.

If I were expressing feelings, I can tell you this, my posts would not at all take that form.

You mean they'd be less coherent than they already are? Holy crap!

So, the way I see it---and please excuse me for this---I don't think it would be too productive to come over to a ground you have prepared for the argument you want. I am really pretty happy with that post and it clearly expressed what I think about a group of related things.

Maybe in your mind it did. To me it was just nebulous waffle that carried one single insinuation/statement. That's why I repeatedly asked you to furnish some actual evidence and argument. Something you still have failed to do. Your feelings don't constitute an argument, Alex.

Maybe you should read it a few more times

Arrh! You cruel bastard! :)

and make the effort to extract what I am attempting to communicate?

I get the idea. You think there are fascistic trends in ideas expressed here. Furnish some actual evidence of this or shut up. Calling people neo-fascists is no small matter Alex. It's very serious. I expect more than poetic waffle and insinuation from you, but so far it's not forthcoming.

But the tactic of reducing my communication to merely an emotional outburst (knowing what you think of emotions=female, etc.) is just a bad tactic.

Dude, you're the tactician here.

I assert that my post is composed of a group of ideas, and those ideas should be approached as ideas.

Your assertions don't mean much.

But to respond to your 'request': ah, well, it is because I think you are expressing and refining, and seeking agreements for and about an ideology, the ideology that you have developed and that you are interested in sharing. It is an ideology about woman. No ideology exists in a vacuum, and all ideas are related.

This is typical of your style. Poetic fluff. I cannot discern a point in that. I know what the words mean, but there's no actual connection to me that I can see.

The whole issue hinges on how successful you are in getting your definitions to stick, in fact (I opine) it doesn't really matter if they are 'true' or 'false',

Definitions cannot be true or false.

I perceive that in a general way you actually start from your own emotive platform,

Based on what? Intuition?

but dress up ideas to appear 'rational' and 'reasonable'.

Example? Evidence?

But is it fair to say that the core of your ideas is in its way emotive?

No, it's not fair to say that. On what basis do you think it?

These are feelings about women, feelings about what they do, feelings about society, etc. I get the impression that you also operate from an eristical position, and I am not convinced that you are actually interested in sharing and building ideas.

That's right, I've just been discussing these issues everyday for the past ten years purely for the entertainment value.

I don't think that it is wise for any of us to assume we are not directly influenced by our psychology, and by our 'unconscious selves', and if I am not mistaken these are the seat of emotions, feeling about things.

Sure, that would not be wise, but again this is just empty insinuation.

I am not necessarily trying to 'win' here, I am interested just in getting as much on the table as possible. I wrote a while back I am not too interested in polarized, boring arguments.

You don't read your own posts then?

I have every intention of maximizing me time here to learn as much as I can about a subject of vital interest to me. I will likely get around to reading your writing, but so far (yawn) I am not at all impressed. Not at all.

Gibberish. One minute you say you haven't read my writings, the next you say you're not impressed.

My doctrines are in fact superior, and with time I will demonstrate this. I will convert you all to mu disciples and I will bring you all to the Promised Land...

Whatever.

Alex: "Here on this list we note certain persons whose idea structures are...well...neo-fascistic for want of a better word."

Dan: "That's a pretty big claim. Can you give examples?"

Alex: The examples I would provide are to be found in specific formulations I have encountered on this forum since I joined. My first conversations were with Leyla. Those posts are there and can be read.

They can? Get outta here! For you to distill neo-fascism from Leyla's posts requires a great deal of imagination on your part, or do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of neo-fascism? I suspect you might.

I have seen a general similar trend in the ideas expressed here, but it would take me a while to pick through and present them to you. Do you really want me to do that, or is that an eristical tactic?

Excuse me? You accuse people of fascism and then ask me if I'm engaging in tactics when I ask that you furnish evidence? Are you insane?

Dan: "Prove it. Just asserting this is weak as piss."

Alex: My piss is capable of melting steel.

Your piss contains thermite? That must be painful.

If you keep reading my posts, and perhaps if you were to reread them (do a better reading), my ideas are expressed pretty clearly. I don't restate ideas, I prefer just to continue to work them in different ways and different contexts, using a gamut of up front and also 'devious' tactics. I prefer the angle of humor, but it has to be used sparingly.

What I'd like to see in your posts is evidence and argument rather than wafty poetry and insinuation and assertion. On lives in hope.

[Imadrongo]

Alex,

You have no choice but to 'do something on your own', and in my way of thinking the individual, yourself, is all you really have to work with.

You work with yourself in the world. There is tons of land and other organisms to conquer and work with, but ultimately you only have direct control of yourself.

And you can do anything you want, anything. It is the nature of the place that you have freedom.

We don't have that much freedom really.... People with wills to power are constantly struggling to increase their power by taking from others. If you exercise a great will to power you are free, if you do nothing you are not "free to do anything although you don't"!

I mentioned to you (in PM) that I thought 'coming into contact with ideas is similar to coming into contact with 'sprits'.

I don't understand. Ideas are simply... ideas. They are useful.

It seems to me that Nietzsche recognizes that it is only, or predominantly, action and activity that has molded the world, and I think he identifies this creative spirit as the more important thing.

He recognizes that his will to power is how life works. All life strives to increase its power by taking power from other life. Our sick "decadent" society is one of pettiness and non-action. We experience little suffering (our goal and ideal) and at the same time we experience little happiness! Nietzsche realizes that the two are intricately linked.

The Apollonian and Dionysian I don't completely grasp. Apollonian is reason and rationality. Thus it requires detachment, lack of emotion, lack of passion. And in return it reduces suffering. The Dionysian places value on intuition and passion and emotion. Yet without any rationality one would simply be an animal. Thus Nietzsche ends up picking a combination of the two. To embrace life one needs some of the Dionysian. The Apollonian is humanity's tool. That's my current understanding....

[divine focus]

No, we conflate all that is unconscious with the feminine. You don't seem to understand that our only real interest in this lies in its relationship to consciousness and wisdom. The political, psychological and sexual observations are merely tools to demonstrate practical manifestations of these things. The actual politics of feminism, for example, is of only passing interest to me. If there weren't deeper philosophical connotations to it I would care about it at all.

If we can agree that the unconscious is not bad or less than or "unenlightened," we can put most of this thread to rest. Everyone has an unconscious, obviously. It's not something that's keeping us from wisdom. The problem, or better yet, the challenge, is that the conscious, objective awareness is blind to some extent to the unconscious, subjective awareness. The subjective is the basis for our lives, but our minds deny this. The solution isn't to completely objectify the subjective (as an abstract absolute) or to deny that the subective exists altogether. The point of spiritual growth is to objectively allow the subjective some conscious awareness, some attention. This can only happen through objective understanding of the relationship, which takes time.

[Alex Jacob]

Hi Dan,

You ask for some specific forms of evidence, but I am not sure what that would be. What precidely are you asking from me? On this forum, reading some people's writing, I am disturbed by some of the ideas expressed, and in the context of you and your formulations I am troubled and skeptical of your ideology in respect to 'woman' and the feminine. You may not like the assertion or the 'insinuation', but this is what I think, based on what I have read so far. Give me a clue as to what, for you, constitutes 'evidence', and please demonstrate in your posts how you use this 'evidence'. Do you mean citations to other sources? Footnotes?

In the majority of posts on this forum, all are expressing opinions.

"I get the idea. You think there are fascistic trends in ideas expressed here. Furnish some actual evidence of this or shut up. Calling people neo-fascists is no small matter Alex. It's very serious."

It is serious. Ideas that hinge on matters or race and gender are very contentious areas. The post I wrote, and which you responded to, is still sufficient for my purposes. I don't really want to restate it. If you want to discuss any part of that, do so.

[Dan Rowden]

Hi Dan,

You ask for some specific forms of evidence, but I am not sure what that would be. What precidely are you asking from me? On this forum, reading some people's writing, I am disturbed by some of the ideas expressed, and in the context of you and your formulations I am troubled and skeptical of your ideology in respect to 'woman' and the feminine. You may not like the assertion or the 'insinuation', but this is what I think, based on what I have read so far. Give me a clue as to what, for you, constitutes 'evidence', and please demonstrate in your posts how you use this 'evidence'. Do you mean citations to other sources? Footnotes?

Honestly, are you serious? I get that you are troubled. But about what, specifically? Please name a specific idea that you find false and we can examine it.

[Laird]

Both you [Elizabeth] and Laird claim to understand the woman issue, but your words and reactions say otherwise.

It should be noted that both Elizabeth and Laird are both proponents of infinite blandness, which is a core trait of feminine unconsciousness.

And by the same token, you, David, imply that you understand the peace issue, but what you write above belies a real understanding of what at least I (and from what I understand, also Elizabeth) mean when I speak of peace.

Elizabeth, for example, primarily wants “peace”, which is as bland and as meaningless a goal that can ever be. It wants to remove all the jagged edges of life, all contrasts and distinctions, and mush everything up into a sea of infinite blandness.

Peace does not mean the end of difference, competition, rivalry, creativity and play; it rather means the elimination of destructive, aggressive violence. I use the qualification "destructive" because even in times of peace, some forms of violent aggression in the form of consensual play (e.g. contact sports) are acceptable.

Laird is a little different. He goes the more direct route and simply keeps everything as vague as possible. He has no need of goals, since for him everything is already mush. He already exists in infinite blandness.

Ah, joy: I am a Man of the Infinite (blandness) after all. But I would have thought that by now, David, you would have realised that I have a strong set of values. I build my goals around my values. At present unfortunate circumstances prevent me from having all but the most modest of goals, however that is not my preference.

Both are experts at absorbing everything, stripping away its meaning and moving on.

It's a bit simpler than that: we disagree with you. Masculinity and femininity still have meaning to me, just a different meaning than yours.

Confront this process directly, however, and suddenly they flounder. Their absorption and neutering powers are suddenly powerless. They start squealing like pigs and try to attack the thing confronting them more directly and violently. They accuse it of being “vile”, “hateful”, “criminal, “vomit-inducing”, etc. The idea is to budge the thing out of its position, turn it away from its path, edge it a little sideways, just enough so that they can absorb the thing and move on.

The idea is to express an honest reaction to a dishonest and harmful philosophy. My accusations were backed by reasoning. I told you that your ascribing of general and overwhelming inferiority to the feminine (a fallacious identification in my opinion) has the effect of increasing personal insecurity in a world where insecurity is already rife, and that this can be considered as a hateful effect. You might have noticed that I hedged on definitively classifying it as a hate crime, using words such as "perhaps" and "might". This is because I don't really believe that the promotion of your ideas alone constitutes a hate crime, but I do believe that it can easily be used to justify real hate crimes, e.g. the specific abortion of female foetuses or the killing of female babies at birth because they are unlikely to reach "masculine" levels of consciousness. I have read that at one point you advocated such a practice, although I have not read the primary source for this so you have the benefit of the doubt in my mind. If it is true though, then it points to a very real danger: if even the supposedly level-headed "enlightened" originators of this unfair philosophy can advocate hate-crimes such as these based on it, then what perverted practices might less balanced individuals trigger off it?

You might argue that the actions of "the deluded" in response to "truth" are not your responsibility, and if I thought that you actually were promoting the truth then I would (with reservations) agree with you, however as I have tried to make plain I disagree that your formulations of gender are accurate, let alone truthful.

Starting at the beginning: you have a set of ideas about how to correctly apprehend reality. Some of these ideas are more solid, such as that free will is ultimately an illusion (I don't go so far as to agree that this is an ultimate truth because for all I know this idea is like Newtonian mechanics: ripe for overhaul by an Einstein). Some of them are flimsier, such as the implications of the notions of "emptiness" and "causality" for the way that one behaves in and responds to the world. You claim that one should avoid attachment to avoid the hell realms that go along with the loss of the heaven realms associated with attachment (love, etc). But what you don't consider is the possibility that one can experience the heavenly realms of pleasure without succumbing to the evils of attachment and the ultimate loss of that attachment. For this reason and others I don't buy that your philosophy is of necessity ultimate and complete.

Getting stuck into the middle: you claim that women are unconscious because they cannot comprehend and implement your philosophy. My friend, as a fellow rational man, even I cannot place my faith in the entirety of your philosophy! You have some sensible things to say, but your views are by no means comprehensive. Expecting anyone, let alone women, to accept that complete agreement with them comprises "wisdom" is to indulge in an egocentric fantasy. They are your views: fine, have them. They speak of some truths, but not the entirety: fine, let each man and woman find his or her own way. But, no, you will not have this. If it does not conform to your views it is "deluded" and "unconscious". Somehow women are more deluded and unconscious than men in your opinion. I do not claim to understand how you came to such a radical understanding. Certainly the women that I am close to are very capable of understanding the concepts that you are teaching, but choose to approach life with less denial of possibility than your philosophy suggests.

In conclusion: merely because people disagree with your philosophy does not make them unconscious. Your philosophy is of debatable quality. Men and women who reject parts of it are not necessarily deluded. "Deluded" and "unconscious" people are not necessarily acting out of femininity. In Wisdom of the Infinite you discuss the relative arbitrariness of categorisation. The assignment of unconsciousness to the category of femininity is such an arbitrary categorisation. There is no good reason to ascribe it any more to femininity than to humanity. In addition, your judgement of what characterises consciousness is suspect from the start. You have a philosophical agenda to push and you naturally equate those who disagree with it with those who are incapable of "enlightenment". You fail to consider the possibility that your own feeling of enlightenment is as deluded as those whom you seek to castigate for such a failing. There is no reason to believe that women are any less capable of intellectually understanding your "truths" as men. There is plenty of reason to suspect that women who reject such a philosophy find that it denies the reality of existence by replacing substance with emptiness and denying the potential for experience.

[Alex Jacob]

Dan wrote:

"Honestly, are you serious? I get that you are troubled. But about what, specifically? Please name a specific idea that you find false and we can examine it."

Honestly, I am serious. A few posts back you dismissed my post as being merely a group of feelings, and it was not. This was a tactic (I assume) to avoid taking up any point I raised and examining it, or questioning it, and you use what I am gathering is your standard attack: that it is composed of female emotions and is therefor dismissable. Then, you sort of 'atomized' a post, rejecting or ridiculing the thoughts presented, and asking for 'evidence'. I asked you for clarification as to what you require as 'evidence' and asked you to demonstrate with your own posts your use of such evidence. But you did not answer, so I assume you are employing diversionary tactics. Now you ask me to name a specific idea that I find false so that we can 'examine' it.

I conclude that you are not playing in good faith.

I accept your view that I have written posts that are based on my impressions, but to say impressions does not necessarily imply that they are derived from feelings alone, or are completely subjective or without substance, and this should be obvious.

You are right that the use of the term 'neo-fascist' is problematic, but in today's social climate I think there is a real danger of formulations taking shape which, directly or indirectly, support or express regressive and potentially destructive idea-clusters, so I would rather say that this issue of 'neo-fascism' in ideas is something I am questioning, and not just here.

I am certain that fascism had a strong interest and involvement in defining gender roles in rigid ways---I could cite a few web pages for example that would support this idea---and your references to Weininger and the use of Nietzsche's philosophy (both generally classified as 'anti-feminist') to support your ideology of woman could indicate links to similar activity, the work of defining and redefining, and the control that derives from it. In any case, right now, I will stay with the insinuation ('an artfully indirect, often derogatory suggestion') until I know your and others opinions here better.

[Dan Rowden]

Alex,

Dan: Honestly, are you serious? I get that you are troubled. But about what, specifically? Please name a specific idea that you find false and we can examine it.

Alex: Honestly, I am serious. A few posts back you dismissed my post as being merely a group of feelings, and it was not.

It was about feeling and it wasn't a dismissal, it was a critique. Dismissals don't tend to include requests for clarification, examples, evidence and specifics. If anything I gave it more attention than it deserved.

This was a tactic (I assume) to avoid taking up any point I raised and examining it, or questioning it, and you use what I am gathering is your standard attack: that it is composed of female emotions and is therefor dismissable.

Only an experienced astronomer could have meaningfully examined the neblosity of that post. If you think the statement: "I am disturbed by the neo-fascist ideas I see here" is one that contains sufficient actual information that can be engaged and debated, either you're mad or I am. I'm not a mind reader.

Then, you sort of 'atomized' a post, rejecting or ridiculing the thoughts presented, and asking for 'evidence'.

Yes, how dare I expect you to present some actual arguments to show that the ideas about Woman presented here echo fascist thinking. I am such a bully.

I asked you for clarification as to what you require as 'evidence' and asked you to demonstrate with your own posts your use of such evidence. But you did not answer, so I assume you are employing diversionary tactics. Now you ask me to name a specific idea that I find false so that we can 'examine' it.

Mate, if you don't get what a request for evidence means there is exactly no possibility of a discussion with you taking place.

I conclude that you are not playing in good faith.

I don't play games, Alex. I expect you back up an assertion as serious as the one made.

You are right that the use of the term 'neo-fascist' is problematic, but in today's social climate I think there is a real danger of formulations taking shape which, directly or indirectly, support or express regressive and potentially destructive idea-clusters, so I would rather say that this issue of 'neo-fascism' in ideas is something I am questioning, and not just here.

Ok, but again, do you not see how nebulous that all is? It tells me exactly zero about what said ideas might be or why they are a problem. I could easily express agreement with those statements but actually in my own head be thinking about ideas that are the opposite of your own.

Now, this next paragraph at least contains some ideas sufficiently well formed to tackle:

I am certain that fascism had a strong interest and involvement in defining gender roles in rigid ways

Society has historically done that very thing. Do you know I am totally opposed to the concept of gender "roles"? I regard social roles based purely on gender (or most things, really) to be fascistic. To critically examine this history one must gain a proper understanding of why it exists. That entails an understanding of the nature of the feminine and masculine dimensions of mind and how they manifest and create society. That examination may uncover some uncomfortable truths. We mire ourselves in nonsense when and if we avoid them.

---I could cite a few web pages for example that would support this idea---and your references to Weininger and the use of Nietzsche's philosophy (both generally classified as 'anti-feminist') to support your ideology of woman could indicate links to similar activity, the work of defining and redefining, and the control that derives from it.

If you don't define something, how the hell can you examine or talk about it? Anyway, like most people I'm not sure you know when Nietzsche is engaging in satire, parody and sarcasm. These are actually powerful trends throughout his writing. I mean, you do get that Nietzsche was more "literary" than any other western philosopher?

In any case, right now, I will stay with the insinuation ('an artfully indirect, often derogatory suggestion') until I know your and others opinions here better.

Ok.

[Alex Jacob]

When I first came on this list I encountered someone who referred to me as 'jew boy' and I also read information dealing with what looked like a species of revisionism, (you participated in this thread also) which is often a dangerous strain of ideas, from a Jewish perspective. There are others here who, either resulting from (what they might call) 'bravery of thought' are reconsidering racial definitions (to what end I am not sure), and issues that pertain to definitions of women, what 'woman' is, and the feminine. Neil is coming up with some apologetics for Adolf Hitler...Weininger, in Jewish circles, is considered a dangerous anti-semite...Nietzsche has questionable elements, even if he is brilliant.

It is not uncommon that in fishbowls of this sort strange strains of ideas are swimming around.

Under these circumstances and in this sort of environment some caution is advised, and some paranoia is excused...

In the course of time (as I said) I will examine your material and make comments about it.

[sue hindmarsh]

Ataraxia wrote:

David: This thread has only reinforced my conviction that confronting woman directly, head on, without any backsliding at all, is the only way to go. If you make it any less direct, if you start hedging around and making concessions in order to appease her, then she will simply swallow you up and you’re gone.

Yes, youre right on this David.

I need to take leaf out of the great Australian philospher Chopper Read's book :0 and "toughen the fuck up"

Only thing is though, if Chopper tried to confront his own attachment to illusions as David has encouraged above, he’d crumble into a babbling mess. The reason for this is that Chopper’s life, like most men’s, is structured entirely by the values of society - and those values are wholly feminine.

Anyone who knows Chopper’s history of armed robbery, firearm offenses, assault and kidnapping may protest against my idea, saying that that kind of behaviour must surely be considered "anti-social". But they’d be wrong. His actions may not be encouraged directly by most of society, but the emotions that drive those acts are. Love, envy, jealousy, hatred, empathy, and compassion are just a small sample of the emotions that society values highly and which it continuously promotes. Chopper’s "anti-social" behaviour is a logical consequence of his valuing those same emotions. He is in truth no more violent than a Christian, a peacenik, a mother, or any other person who values the emotions over the truth.

I reckon if you went up to Chopper and asked him to stop valuing love because it was the cause of hate and violence, he’d first punch your head in, and then spit on you for being such a “mean-hearted weird fuck”.

For men like Chopper, there is little chance of him ever becoming truly tough enough to face-up to his own attachment to the feminine (illusions), and therefore, he will be lost in her forever. But I suppose, Ataraxia, you can still use Chopper to inspire you to not become a complete wuss like he is.

[Leyla Shen]

What you fail to examine, Alex, is the “neo-fascistic” nature of the Jew and the nation of Israel.

Perhaps if you did that honestly, you might find all your confusion and paranoia suddenly solved. You might see directly into the very mind you fear. You (the Jew) had it way before Hitler came along. In fact, if it wasn’t for something on the order of Hitler, you’d be less your beloved Promised Land today. Your trouble is the only "facts" you want to examine on the matter relate to your Jewishness, which you yourself can't even define.

Do you really want to remain as stupid as you are?

[tooyi]

Alas,
Truth is without fashion.

No garment, No peace agreed,
may dress enough their crime,
as mortal enemies each other blind
to become friends of all time.

And god will just have to give way.

Ignorant in fear of losing other's admiration,
trading appearances to forget.
And, live fully,
to be, Humvee happy, and maybe, maybe not...

A magazine brings news of a fantastic new facelift,
an ingenious lever of love,
in a community of humans in action, together,
towards comfortable rest in decency,
a Big peace for a makeshift nirvana

disappointment.

As all children still count their candy.

Fifty.

Fifty.

And so you die.

Alas,
you would not kill your son.
Not even if god asked you for it.

Fool.

Truth is without self.
Mind constricting finds it alone.
With no illusion hand resting on timeless stone.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What you fail to examine, Alex, is the “neo-fascistic” nature of the Jew and the nation of Israel.

...

Do you really want to remain as stupid as you are?

I believe that it is important to the cause of objectivity to point out that Leyla represents Leyla Shen. She does not represent all Muslims, nor all women.

[Leyla Shen]

Quite correct (though you definitely and so very sorely continue to miss the point). I neither represent worshipers of Allah nor the Great Vagina Coalition in the sky. I definitely see well beyond them.

Extraordinary that the cause of objectivity should see you contrasting mine with the lack of your own but, important? Only to those who have trouble being objective. Kind of obvious, otherwise--and I do recall having to point it out, hand you this very idea of my own objectivity, in the first place, genius!

[David Quinn]

To correct a misconception frequently uttered by Elizabeth and Laird, I don't actually equate unconsciousness with femininity. Unconsciousness can, and does, occur in both masculine and feminine-minded people. However, and this is critical to understanding the woman issue, the nature of this unconsciousness is vastly different in each case.

Women (i.e. those who mentally women) are unconscious in a very different way to men. As a rule, the masculine mind is very coherent and structured. It possesses the memory and consistency required to apply logic to any area of life and discern truth there. However, because men still have egos, and therefore fears and attachments, they are usually loathe to apply logic in those dangerous areas which potentially threaten their attachments. And so they engage in all sorts of mental trickery to cope. They erect mental blocks, develop the habit of short-circuiting their reasoning powers before they go too far, distract themselves, become obsessive about trivial matters, and so on. In other words, their lack of consciousness is ultimately a product of fear.

The feminine mind, by contrast, is incoherent and unstructured. It flows along aimlessly, moving from one ill-conceived thought to another, lacking the memory and consistency to apply logic in any one direction for long, unable to really progress or understand anything at all. Whatever knowledge-structures it does possess are merely echoes of what is been fed into it by other people, by society as a whole. The lack of consciousness in this case is the result of mental incapacity.

Laird makes the point that a woman can understand deep philosophic ideas if you present them to her. But sadly, that is an illusion. Because women's minds are flowy and formless, they can be easily shaped into any form at all by an external force. This goes to the heart of why women are far more easily suggestible than men. So you can present an idea to a woman and she can appear to understand it and discern its significance, but as soon as the conversation has finished the form in her mind has disappeared again. The idea is entirely forgotten. She has flowed aimlessly into something else. Nothing has stuck.

This relates to what Sue said on the show, namely that women never change. From the moment they are born, they always remain "woman". Nothing they say or do or achieve ever changes this.

We can observe some of the differences between these two modes of consciousness on this forum. Consider Alex Jacob, for example, who I consider to be fairly masculine. His thought-processes are very consistent, structured and layered. They display a lot of irony and reflective humour. Although he is unconscious in a deeper sense - because of attachments, fears, mental blocks, etc - his mind is still multi-dimensional and has a lot of quality to it. He has the capacity to comprehend ultimate truth if he were to apply himself.

Contrast this with Elizabeth and Laird, both of whom I consider to be very feminine. Their thinking is essentially one-dimensional, unstructured, lacking in humour and irony, emotionally-driven, and ultimately aimless. Not completely, because even the most feminine-minded of people possess some masculinity and therefore some structure and purpose. But the differences between them and Alex are acute.

This is why I have concluded that women have no potential for wisdom at all. There simply isn't enough mental capacity there to take the initiative and follow a line of thought to the very end and be changed by it. The flow is too unstructured and aimless.

How much of this can be corrected by changes in our culture and how much of it is going to require genetic modification is still an open question, I think. It is encouraging that recent studies suggest that mental functioning can change significantly in different circumstances, that females can become more masculine in their mental processing and males more feminine. So there is a ray of hope there.

Again, by "women", I mean those who are mentally women.

-