Ne Plus Ultra

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: ---

Post by Kevin Solway »

suergaz wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>They ban people to this forum Naturyl. 'Notsure7' was banned from this site.<hr>

I'm Notsure about that. Perhaps Dan can respond if he's reading this.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Also, the original genius forum and everything on it just disappeared. I had already cut up Dan and David there with my posts on 'Beauty'<hr>

Most of the older posts can still be found in the "Archives" section of the forum. The oldest messages were lost when Ezboard did a major system upgrade, and deleted them. We didn't want them to be deleted, but we didn't have any control over it.
krussell2004
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: ---

Post by krussell2004 »

* Edited by: krussell2004 at: 2/3/04 10:56 am
krussell2004
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: ---

Post by krussell2004 »

* Edited by: krussell2004 at: 2/3/04 11:02 am
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: ---

Post by Rhett »

African and Australian peoples have shamanic traditions which exist for no other purpose than communing with "ultimate reality."

How can they commune with reality since they don't experience it Truthfully?




For you to suggest that entire races of people have no interest in 'enlightenment' because they do not visit this site is beyond absurd. It is both ethnocentric and egocentric in the extreme.

The interactions that i have had with such people - throughout my whole life - have led me from a base assumption of equality, to an opinion that they are indeed, in a *general* sense, more feminine minded than average. Both males and females.

Think about the current situation in Zimbabwe. Think about the situation in Africa generally. Think about the situation in America. Think about Papua New Guinea. Just to name a few.

Think about the Aus Aborigines; reading reports from the early days of colonial settlement, the Aborigines were regularly having duals with spears. Have those base characteristics changed? A 'pack' of Aboriginal youths passed me a little while ago. They were a black pall of suffering, constant ego oscillations and power games with each other, incredible insecurity and mob mindedness. Despite the white invasion, they've had a lot of support to develop lives for themselves, but still seem to fail to adapt to life in a (slightly) more rational and civilised society. Despite what i say, it's obvious whites did stuff up their lifestyle (which certainly had a number of good points), so i value the best for them.

I worked with a black american for a while, and at the age of 42 he was still attached to constant sex, alchohol, and his appearance in very much the same manner as a 20 year old commonly is.





Kevin and David think that women should be more masculine physically, ie. less beautiful. I think Rhett thinks this also. Rhett?

What is 'beauty' - but an egotistical attachment to particular forms in nature?

I'm oblivious to notions of beauty/ugly. To think that people would label so few things beautiful, and thus render the remainder of their experiences as wanting...it's totally illogical, counterproductive.




Also, you really don't think there have been/will be sagacious black men?

I think they - generally speaking - may find it a little harder than others.


Rhett
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: ---

Post by birdofhermes »

Suergaz:. 'Notsure7' was banned from this site. Also, the original genius forum and everything on it just disappeared. I had already cut up Dan and David there with my posts on 'Beauty'. I disagree about the misogyny of "QRS" Anna, and I have not found Dan to be a misogynist,

Notsure was banned because it was like trying to talk above a cacophany of snarling bulldogs. I’d like to know what you said, (and if you actually did say anything). Beauty is one aspect of their misogyny I’ve been thinking of. I don’t know how you can disagree that they are misogynists, or what that word means to you. I don’t see why several people have voted Dan the least misogynistic. I hereby rehabilitate him to full status. Kevin appears the mildest, but that may be a matter of personal style.

Krussell: Bull. It's easy for you to say that now in the comfort of living in a free and democratic state with all your rights and freedoms. God, the stuff people type sometimes.

I’m disappointed you think I would make such a statement without having given it a lot of thought. See below.

Naturyl: I agree that Bird went a bit far. Still, she has a point in that if QRS misogyny were widely accepted, other individuals would act on it. I don't get the sense that QRS themselves would take any direct action to harm women even if they had the power, but someone else who adopted their views very well might. If QRS thinking regarding women had widespread influence, it would only be a matter of time before some misguided but 'well-meaning' leader or government initiated a "final solution to the female problem." It is defintely not safe to promote such ideas, and Bird is not without reason in her concern.

This is exactly what I meant, and I fear it so much that I have never before articulated it. The evil eye, you know. It wasn’t so much when David mentioned it being a good idea to strangle female infants at birth that I felt upset, but when he said that if his child had been a girl he would probably have refused to be a father to it.

When you see what the Taliban are willing to do, what could happen when men of the same mindset get scientific or political power? It matters not what they personally would do or advocate, but what might happen if by some great misfortune their writings fail to lie in obscurity and are resurrected? But it is not only the terrible harm of that case, but the things which David, at least, has advocated personally. Under Taliban women are left somewhat intact with at least hope, whereas David wants to make them extinct because he thinks he is wiser than nature.

It is all so tiring because they are simply saying the same things that men of separative and dualistic minds, battered and bruised by the evils of civilization, have been saying over and over. In one place it is the veil and clitoridectomy, in another it is special laws claiming that only testimony of witchcraft gotten under torture is valid. Now we have the modern, sanitized version. All clean and zen. Women must be shorn of being women at all, and then they may be accepted into the human race. It certainly would be a final solution.

Oh God save us from men who think they know what they are doing. The human being is so mind boggling a product of nature, and woman its most complex aspect, and they think they should redesign it out of existence.

Why can civilized man not forgive women for being women?

Naturyl: although Bird seems to feel that David is still fending them off well into page five.

I do think he is being stubborn about the explanation of reality in which our sense perceptions give us less than a full picture, but do give us hints so that we explore and find out more, such as through science.

Most interpretations, however, manage to sooner or later run counter to the Western spirit at a fundamental level and can therefore lead us to delusion rather than genuine enlightenment. The Eastern and Western mindsets, like those of men and women, have genuine differences, and often what is sustenance to one is poison to the other. For Westerners, non-attachment is non-existence rather than Nirvana.

Could you elaborate? I have tended to think it true that “wisdom is of the east” and that the oriental is superior in ultrafine sensitivities. So there’s my racist plug.

Kevin: Despite the fact that I am, supposedly, one of the most extreme "haters of women" (ie, misogynists) the world has ever known, for some reason none of the women in my life have been able to detect it. And these women are not themselves "haters of women", who would, presumably, agree with my views, but are ordinary, everyday women, of the kind you would meet anywhere. Even though these women have the astounding intuitive abilities we all know, with which they can read a person's body language, and perceive their unspoken feelings, still they cannot detect this hatred that I am supposed to have, and nor do they detect that I have "walls-up" with regard to them.

Many women who know me say that I am "the exact opposite of a misogynist". Some of these women say that I have "too much respect for women", and that I should not hold women's opinions in as high a regard as I do (and which I do on principle), and which leads me to lend women's views such great significance.

Never in my daily life (daily, or at any other time!) have I tried to restrict a woman's freedom, and in fact, I have always pushed to increase women's freedom to determine their own lives. I have only ever encouraged women to think for themselves and do as they please. I never treat a woman as inferior just because she is, supposedly, a woman.

Kevin, I’m not particularly surprised by anything above, except perhaps to wonder if these women have been privy to your opinions? You may not act the misogynist, but you certainly speak it. Have they read Weininger? You make a fool of yourself when you say Weininger can express your opinions about women. You speak far better than he.

Kevin, you are an affable fellow, with a kind and respectful demeanor toward others. This is good. But do you harbor poisonous thoughts that cannot be detected to those on the outside? I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but I knew someone like that, and oddly, he had a love-hate relationship with women.

Of course it will not be a good idea to restrict women. You have a different plan. My strength is I see patterns.

I can see that what I said made you uncomfortable, which is a good sign that you are not dead. And I do not know you so well as Dan and David, but my assessment of them, and I think you, is one of great inconsistency, willful blindness, emotional dishonesty, but most of all, a shocking and deeply saddening injustice.

You are ignorant of the nature of woman. Weininger was wrong.

Will you be insulted if I elevate you to the status of least misogynistic of QRS?
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: ---

Post by Naturyl »

Jimhaz:

How are we moving 'beyond yin and yang?' They are representative of the universal dialectic encoutered in every relative thing. The male/female dichotomy is one expression of this all-encompassing yin/yang idea. It is a universal principle. How will we 'move beyond' it?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: ----

Post by David Quinn »

My vote for the most amusing comment on this thread would have to go to this, by Naturyl:

Quote:Quote:<hr> Well, in the sense that QRS 'hurt people' by making them examine themselves and their relationships, we can hardly fault them, lest we be like the ignorant mob who demanded Socrates' death for similar reasons. If that was all they did, I really couldn't object. Unfortunately, I don't think that they are entirely Socratic - they want to undermine not only things that people hold dear, but things that are mandated by Nature itself. Male/female differences in thinking are an expression of the yin/yang universal dialectic . . . . <hr> Ha!
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: ----

Post by Naturyl »

And what is funny about that, David? Are you perhaps thinking that I am misunderstanding Socrates in that he would consider those things I see as universal principles as nothing more than delusions and therefore tear them apart with the same zest he reserved for other follies? Oh yes, I've considered that. I simply reject it. If you imagine that Socrates would have considered a universal principle such as yin/yang to be nothing more than another superstition held dear by the mob, I think it is you who misunderstand the great man. You laugh because you imagine that I have erred in mentioning Socrates, and that he would scorn yin/yang and its relation to the male/female issue as readily as he scorned the Greek pantheon. I think not, David.

If I've misunderstood what you were laughing at, please correct me. If, however, I have been more or less accurate in my estimation, let that be known as well.

In other news, Bird said:

Quote:Quote:<hr>David mentioned it being a good idea to strangle female infants at birth<hr>David said that? That is absolutely outrageous, even for him. Would you mind linking to the thread in which this remark appears? It is so mind-boggling and monstrous that it strains credulity, and you'll forgive me for needing to see for myself.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Regarding the Ne Plus Ultra fiasco:

Post by Naturyl »

I have now read all nine 'chapters' of the NPU affair. Although David did bring a certain amount of abuse on himself with his typical ridiculous remarks about women, I will agree that overall, the worst of the behavior came from NPU members. It is not inaccurate to describe the tone as 'hysterical' in the later stages of the unfortunate exchange. David recieved a good deal of verbal abuse, to which he responded quite calmly and rationally. I would have enjoyed seeing these so-called 'elites' give David a thorough trouncing, but that did not in fact occur. Instead, David 'won' a majority of the exchanges not only in terms of mature conduct, but of rational argument as well. The few points I would concede to NPU were scored only during rare moments when they abandoned their semantic gymnastics and nearly incomprehensible jargon and addressed David on his own terms. The NPU members gave, overall, a very poor account of themselves. David's essay, although insincerely apologetic and throughly unconvincing in regard to the 'women/dogs' issue, was otherwise a fairly insightful analysis.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: ----

Post by David Quinn »

I've never said that. I think it was our resident chimp, Suergaz, who imagined that I said it.

Even if I did say it, your reaction of outrage is rather curious for somenoe who claims to be a practitioner of the Tao.

In any case, what I found funny was that, after affirming the value of QRS questioning people's emotional values, you immediately diefied your own emotional attachments in order to make them safe from our probing. It is a bit like a Christian saying, "I think it is great the way Kevin and David force people to exmaine their attachments, but they go too far when they force us to question the things that have been ordained by God - such as the Bible and the Church."

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Regarding the Ne Plus Ultra fiasco:

Post by David Quinn »

Naturyl wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> David's essay, although insincerely apologetic and throughly unconvincing in regard to the 'women/dogs' issue, was otherwise a fairly insightful analysis. <hr> What does "insincerely apologetic" mean?

What do you find unconvincing about the "women/dogs" issue? Do you believe that it is impossible to have a "negative" opinion about women without hating them?
Locked