Poison for the Heart - and Women

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin, a number of years ago I suggested to you that your 'feminine' is non other than unconsiousness. You disagreed, as did David.

I don't recall that. I reckon some other issue must have been involved.

In light of the fact that three times you have recently put the word 'unconscious' in brackets after the word 'feminine', have your thoughts now changed?

I personally don't like using the word "feminine" all the time when I mean "unconscious", and I don't like using the word "Woman" all the time for essentially the same thing, because, as you note, it makes communication very awkward.

In fact, I use those words relatively rarely.

The reason why I return to the words like "feminine" periodically, is that I don't want to allow people to forget the reality of what we're talking about - that is, what we see most obviously and consistently in women, who are man's greatest attachment, and is also the greatest failing in himself. So I use those words for a period, and then I move on, using more regular language.

Additionally, if the word 'unconscious' can be parenthesized after the word 'feminine', why not just make your case using the former? If it's stated clearly enough, people will make the obvious link themselves. There would be no need for the controversy which is likely to drastically decrease the audience willing to consider it, thereby maximising the potential impact.

Agreed. In "Poison for the Heart", for example, all the talk about women is pretty much in the section on "Women", and the rest of the book is in fairly normal language.

Surely you're more likely to make the sale if you sweet talk your way

Yes, but I know how things become diluted through the process of reading, and through the process history. So I want my writing to start with full potency, so that even by the time it's been through the grubby hands of the world, it'll still be a force to be reckoned with.

I don't want people to ever think that I believe women, as they currently are, to be fairly conscious beings, with a great respect for truth.

Jesus was made into a woman through the interpretation of the Church. I don't want that to happen to me.

I remember being really impressed by the brave things Weininger said in his book. He didn't water things down at all. So it's the least I can do to do likewise.

If your ultimate aim is to perpetuate wisdom, is it not sensible to bait your hook for all big game, not just the most exotic of sharks.

The section on women is only a small one compared to the rest of the book.

But that one section on women has caused a lot of problems. Joel Thornton was going to publish the book about five years ago, but I think he was being given a hard time by his girlfriend about it, and he didn't feel as though he could personally justify all the ideas in it, so he withdrew from the project. Recently he's come on board again. When I visited Joel and Heather in Seattle I got on well with Heather, but she is convinced that I think all women are worthless - although we never talked about it - and this created considerable tension, especially for Joel, and so my stay with them was cut short.

[Dave Toast]

I don't recall that. I reckon some other issue must have been involved.

I don't recall myself.

The reason why I return to the words like "feminine" periodically, is that I don't want to allow people to forget the reality of what we're talking about - that is, what we see most obviously and consistently in women, who are man's greatest attachment, and is also the greatest failing in himself.

I wonder whether this truly is the reality we are talking about. Dimensions of mind are the subject and, for me, the feminine dimensions of mind can just as obviously and consistently be seen in men. To a slightly lesser extent, the masculine dimensions of mind can also be observed in women.

Agreed. In "Poison for the Heart", for example, all the talk about women is pretty much in the section on "Women", and the rest of the book is in fairly normal language.

It's still part of the book though, right. As such, the book's potential readership would be drastically reduced thereby. Do you think this would be conducive to your aim of perpetuating wisdom?

Yes, but I know how things become diluted through the process of reading, and through the process history. So I want my writing to start with full potency, so that even by the time it's been through the grubby hands of the world, it'll still be a force to be reckoned with.

I can understand that but it's not really the point I was making. Your primary aim is perpetuating wisdom. All other considerations are secondary to that.

I don't want people to ever think that I believe women, as they currently are, to be fairly conscious beings, with a great respect for truth.

To an infinitesimally lesser extent, you could say the same thing of men, so the point is somewhat moot. With regard to your primary aim and the damage this somewhat moot point may do to it, do you think it's worth making right off the bat?

Jesus was made into a woman through the interpretation of the Church. I don't want that to happen to me.

I remember being really impressed by the brave things Weininger said in his book. He didn't water things down at all. So it's the least I can do to do likewise.

Again, I can understand what you're saying but surely these considerations come a distant second to your primary aim? It doesn't matter a jot what desecrations are done to your words. What matters is that they are presented to the maximum amount of people capable of assimilating their truth.

The section on women is only a small one compared to the rest of the book.

But that one section on women has caused a lot of problems. Joel Thornton was going to publish the book about five years ago, but I think he was being given a hard time by his girlfriend about it, and he didn't feel as though he could personally justify all the ideas in it, so he withdrew from the project. Recently he's come on board again. When I visited Joel and Heather in Seattle I got on well with Heather, but she is convinced that I think all women are worthless - although we never talked about it - and this created considerable tension, especially for Joel, and so my stay with them was cut short.

It is a brick wall to the uninitiated Kevin. Initiation is the primary step.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

she is convinced that I think all women are worthless - although we never talked about it

Why didn't you talk about it? If that was the crux of the problem, I'd think that would have been a major point to talk about.

We talked a good deal about the issue, and I'm glad to see that in this thread you have clarified as follows:

I personally don't like using the word "feminine" all the time when I mean "unconscious"

as that sounds more like the Kevin that was here. But that still does not answer the point I made to you in the Zubaty thread:

The idea is that masculinity equates with consciousness, so it follows that whatever part of a person is not masculine (conscious) is unconscious.

The problem is in equating masculinity with consciousness. It is a false premise even by the definitions in the Woman philosophy, where it states that most men are unconscious.

Masculinity and femininity are related to physical bodies. Philosophical consciousness and unconsciousness relates to the spiritual realm. I understand that you are looking for a manifestation of this to more easily point to, and yes, most women are full of examples of unconsciousness, but so are most men. If you want to point to a group behavior that is unconscious, it is fine to point to the specific group and the behavior. If it so happens that almost every example is of women, people advanced enough to understand the concept will notice the frequency on their own - and this can be done without letting male unconscious behavior - like pro-wrestling - get placed in a higher rank than feminine unconscious behavior - like gossip - just because of the gender associated with it.

Consciousness is above all that. Anything with a gender on it goes in the category of "worldly matters."

[Kevin Solway]

she is convinced that I think all women are worthless - although we never talked about it

Why didn't you talk about it?

It could have caused a flare-up. I was waiting for the right moment, but didn't get the right chance.

The idea is that masculinity equates with consciousness, so it follows that whatever part of a person is not masculine (conscious) is unconscious.

The problem is in equating masculinity with consciousness. It is a false premise even by the definitions in the Woman philosophy, where it states that most men are unconscious.

That's right. Men are not automatically 100% masculine. But men are most easily identifiable by their masculinity (consciousness), even though they only have a small amount of it.

Part of the reason for equating femininity with unconsciousness is to counter woman-worship, which is everywhere. It is a kind of religion. Men tend to put women up on a pedestal, where it is taboo to even criticize them.

male unconscious behavior - like pro-wrestling - get placed in a higher rank than feminine unconscious behavior - like gossip - just because of the gender associated with it.

Not in my mind it doesn't.

[Kevin Solway]

for me, the feminine dimensions of mind can just as obviously and consistently be seen in men.

I doubt that. If that were the case we would see men everywhere wafting around the place in flowy see-through clothing, with flowers in their hair, and not taking any interest in machines, computers, and politics. Men would be dreaming about their wardrobe.

To a slightly lesser extent, the masculine dimensions of mind can also be observed in women.

They can . . . but most men mis-recognize masculine qualities in women because they are under the spell of women. Men tend to mistake intelligence or willfulness in a woman for consciousness.

With regard to your primary aim and the damage this somewhat moot point may do to it, do you think it's worth making right off the bat?

There's very little true writing about women in the whole of world literature. There's Weininger, a little Kierkegaard, a little Schopenhaeur, a little of Buddhism, a little Dave Sim, etc. I really want to contribute to that, even if there is a risk involved.

Anyway, I have to have a section entitled "Women", and I can't very will skip over all the most important truths about them.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

male unconscious behavior - like pro-wrestling - get placed in a higher rank than feminine unconscious behavior - like gossip - just because of the gender associated with it.

Not in my mind it doesn't.

That's because your mind functions rather well. Most people's minds do not function as well as ours do, so what I am trying to point out to you is the kind of misinterpretation that average minds make with certain material. If you look closely, I am not fussing with what you mean, but rather with how you say it because your presentation is commonly misinterpreted. The common misinterpretation is, as has been said by many, dangerous.

Men are not automatically 100% masculine. But men are most easily identifiable by their masculinity (consciousness), even though they only have a small amount of it.

That which is most easily identifiable to an individual is what that individual is most familiar with. You are most familiar with consciousness, to that trait is most easily identifiable to you. Not everyone sees with your eyes; this is where the misinterpretation comes in.

Furthermore, there are traits that could be considered feminine and conscious, like nurturing wisdom in other people. That is a trait that I see in myself, and for that and many other reasons, I see myself as rather conscious (though not perfectly so - and I have more conscious and less conscious times), yet even on my most conscious days, I see myself as substantially feminine. I'm going to put you on the spot, and ask you to judge me first on my level of consciousness, and second on my level of femininity. You ranked yourself as 10 - 70% conscious, and I assume that means you rank yourself equivalently on masculinity. On a bad day I might only be 10% conscious, but on a good day I am probably 90% conscious. I rank my femininity as 50% at some times and 85% at other times. Do you disagree?

[Iolaus]

Kevin,

I doubt that. If that were the case we would see men everywhere wafting around the place in flowy see-through clothing, with flowers in their hair, and not taking any interest in machines, computers, and politics. Men would be dreaming about their wardrobe.

You'll have to do better than this if you want me to take you seriously. This is the reason I have always failed to be excited by feminism. Classic feminism hates women the way they are, does not want to better their situation as women, but considers it the ultimate privelege for women to be men. So this is the ultimate in hatred - total negation of any value to one's being.

Of course, one's gender is not one's true being - but it is very close to the core of life.

You have failed to do a deep analysis here. In other words, you have simply decided that feminine motivations have no purpose, and that unconscious men would start acting like women. Guys who do act that way tend to be gay. Is it more conscious to be obsessed with cars, and with polishing one's car than to be obsessed with one's wardrobe? Especially if, the best way to get a date, and get a chance to make out, is to have a car for the male, and to look nice for the girl? A man who is of low consciousness is most certainly not going to start wearing gossamer clothing. That is absurd.

A man of low consciousness is cruel and unaware of his cruelty. This is also a hallmark of masculine behaviors. So men who are unconscious tend to be unconscious of the reality of other beings. Women are rarely so.

Since consciousness and being are the ultimate reality, women are closer to it, even if their thoughts about it are unfocused.

It is high time, I think, that you began to analyze women as women, and men as men.

Also, since you only care about young and attractive women, you have tended to focus on juvenile feminine behaviors.

You havae noted the differences between men and women, and have wanted to narrow the gap. That is unrealistic. Ain't gonna happen. Either women are inferior, or they are different. No other choices.

Not one man here in five years has the talent for emotional understanding that Elizabeth has. It is a form of common sense. And another person I know who is outstanding in this regard is also a woman, and only 27 years old. but you discount emotions, not entirely without reason (it's a big topic) and so you don't value that. But that is what women are for, it is what they care about, and it is what motivates them.

Now why is it that caring most about the human being makes one an idiot, while caring about the workings of material things, (which is what men care about) is 'conscious'?

Lifting the many layers of delusion in one's thoughts about the world requires chisels. Two useful writers for me were Bodhidharma and Jed McKenna. So I began to see more an more how society is entwined in various sorts of nonsense. Males are not buying into it less than females, in fact, the opposite. And guess where these whole delusional systems are found? why in those very structures that men create - politics, religion, modern medicine, and so forth. Not to say that people aren't very delusional in more personal spheres as well.

There's Weininger, a little Kierkegaard, a little Schopenhaeur, a little of Buddhism, a little Dave Sim, etc.

Don't forget Richard Zubaty. Did you ever get his book?

It certainly is 10X easier to find an interesting man than an interesting woman.

[Dan Rowden]

male unconscious behavior - like pro-wrestling - get placed in a higher rank than feminine unconscious behavior - like gossip - just because of the gender associated with it.

Not in my mind it doesn't.

It does in mine. Though the level of consciousness may vary in a given individual's engagement with pro wrestling (or even gossip, really), pro wrestling is still a more conscious activity than gossip. It has a very specific purpose, it has some formal rules and structure, choreography etc. There's nothing spontaneous about it. The higher rank it deserves in the scale of consciousness may only be incremental, but to me it nevertheless warrants it.

[Dan Rowden]

It certainly is 10X easier to find an interesting man than an interesting woman.

Doesn't this depend on what one's interests are?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

pro wrestling is still a more conscious activity than gossip. It has a very specific purpose, it has some formal rules and structure

Different types of gossip have different, but very specific purposes. Malicious gossip is to harm the reputation of the individual. Gabby gossip is to earn social points by exchanging irrelevant information either to soothe the feelings of another person (so that they become "in the know" and build social bonding) or to barter information that might be useful. There are very definite rules and structure that the practitioners must either intuit or learn by trial and error - and errors in this arena can be as costly as any pro-wrestling match gone wrong. I believe that you are mistaking intellectual consciousness for spiritual consciousness here.

[Kevin Solway]

The common misinterpretation is, as has been said by many, dangerous.

Maybe I'll put a couple more disclaimers in that section, just to make it that much harder to misinterpret, specifically dealing with the common misinterpretation.

there are traits that could be considered feminine and conscious, like nurturing wisdom in other people.

Women are certainly nurturing in some ways, but I wouldn't say that extends to wisdom - at least, not as I conceive of wisdom.

I would say that women are nurturing of unconsciousness, and of the emotions.

I rank my femininity as 50% at some times and 85% at other times. Do you disagree?

We have different conceptions as to what "consciousness" is. I equate pure consciousness with genius, "all-knowledge", and enlightenment. So even having a little consciousness is a magnificent thing.

Re women's gossip:

There are very definite rules and structure that the practitioners must either intuit or learn by trial and error

In the women's gossip I've sometimes overheard there have been very few rules indeed. It's pretty much "anything goes", for endless hours.

[Katy]

Re women's gossip:

In the women's gossip I've sometimes overheard there have been very few rules indeed. It's pretty much "anything goes", for endless hours.

That's only because you don't know the rules.
Most prosports look that way to me, because I don't know the rules.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

In the women's gossip I've sometimes overheard there have been very few rules indeed. It's pretty much "anything goes", for endless hours.

I theorize that less conscious males do not tend to gossip because they do not tend to understand the point - just as less conscious females tend not to watch football because they tend not to get that point.

We have different conceptions as to what "consciousness" is. I equate pure consciousness with genius, "all-knowledge", and enlightenment. So even having a little consciousness is a magnificent thing.

Dodge-ball anyone?

[David Quinn]

male unconscious behavior - like pro-wrestling - get placed in a higher rank than feminine unconscious behavior - like gossip - just because of the gender associated with it.

Not in my mind it doesn't.

It does in mine. Though the level of consciousness may vary in a given individual's engagement with pro wrestling (or even gossip, really), pro wrestling is still a more conscious activity than gossip. It has a very specific purpose, it has some formal rules and structure, choreography etc. There's nothing spontaneous about it. The higher rank it deserves in the scale of consciousness may only be incremental, but to me it nevertheless warrants it.

I also have to disagree with Kevin there. Pro-wrestling is far closer to the kind of conscious activity which leads to the creation of civilization and the development of genius than the feminine practice of mentally wafting around with flowers in one's hair.

The wrestlers and those who organize these events, as crude as they might be, are easily several levels above the scantily-clad girls who hold up signs between rounds.

Kevin: In the women's gossip I've sometimes overheard there have been very few rules indeed. It's pretty much "anything goes", for endless hours.

It's also reactive and petty, almost exclusively concerned with one's own status within the group. While pro-wrestling undoubtedly incorporates a lot of that as well, it also has those elements which are closer to genius.

-

[Kevin Solway]

The wrestlers and those who organize these events, as crude as they might be, are easily several levels above the scantily-clad girls who hold up signs between rounds.

Agreed. I just didn't feel like trying to justify pro-wrestling. It's pretty damn rudimentary!

[David Quinn]

Isolaus,

Not one man here in five years has the talent for emotional understanding that Elizabeth has. It is a form of common sense.

If that is the case, then it doesn't say much for emotional intelligence. Ever since she has been here, Elizabeth has consistently misread what happens on this forum. An example is her belief that jealousy powered the holiday thread.

I think it is due to a lack of irony and an inability to engage in dialectical reasoning. Without these consciousness skills, one's intuitive readings of situations become extremely limited. They work well enough when it comes to conventional people behaving in conventional situations. But they flounder badly in the face of anyone who is more advanced than this.

Men tend to have far more developed emotional intelligence simply because their consciousness is more far-sighted and deeper. They can tap into a larger perspective and place their intuitive readings into greater context. Unlike women, they don't just spew out whatever is on their minds in a reactive sense. They tend to incorporate their readings of people into their other more long-term considerations and put out a response which is measured and layered in depth. And often that means hiding whatever emotional empathy they might have with other people.

-

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth wrote:

Kevin: We have different conceptions as to what "consciousness" is. I equate pure consciousness with genius, "all-knowledge", and enlightenment. So even having a little consciousness is a magnificent thing.

Elizabeth: Dodge-ball anyone?

It was nicely dodged, wasn't it. I don't think she'll let it go at that, somehow, Kevin.

She needs affirmation. Or a reason to get indignant. One or the other.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Since on her best days she is 20% more conscious than Kevin on his, there seems to be no reason for the question other than to test Kevin's efficiency at judging others - which, admittedly, would be a somewhat interesting reason.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Isolaus,

Not one man here in five years has the talent for emotional understanding that Elizabeth has. It is a form of common sense.

If that is the case, then it doesn't say much for emotional intelligence. Ever since she has been here, Elizabeth has consistently misread what happens on this forum.

March 28, 2007

I believe he is being as honest with us as he is being with himself, but how truthful can he be with himself?
...
David, in contrast, has a bunch of people calling him deluded, and many more looking for chinks in his armor. He also has the respect of many people, which is good, but even of the ones that respect him, most do not see him the way he reports himself to be. He's a really strong guy to hold up under all that, but it seems that in order to do so, he must hold onto the belief of the kind of enlightenment he describes and consider that he has at least much of that - even if not "perfect" enlightenment - in order to justify to himself all that he gave up for this.

Meanwhile Kevin, his previously admired mentor who got him into all this, has gone to work and set up a normal life for himself - and where is he? He hardly ever posted, and it has been months since he has participated in a philosophy thread. He shows up every day for board administrative stuff, but has he lost interest in philosophy? If not, where is he?

I believe David tells us what he tells himself.

Sept 28, 2007

Fastforward to now and the situation, alas, is a lot more grim. The quality and quantity of your writing has markedly declined over the last several years. When you do bother to write, the writing is usually only perfunctory at best. Sometimes it is even poorly worded and incoherent. It is only when you are strongly challenged or inspired that some of the old magic comes back.

Sure David - I don't have a clue. I'm just a woman.

Since on her best days she is 20% more conscious than Kevin on his, there seems to be no reason for the question other than to test Kevin's efficiency at judging others - which, admittedly, would be a somewhat interesting reason.

OMG Dan finally caught on.

It was nicely dodged, wasn't it. I don't think she'll let it go at that, somehow, Kevin.

Yes, I will - I got my answer between the lines from Kevin, and loud and clear from you - even though you don't have a clue what you actually said.

She needs affirmation. Or a reason to get indignant. One or the other.

Nope. Maybe Dan can enlighten you.

[Kevin Solway]

Classic feminism hates women the way they are, does not want to better their situation as women, but considers it the ultimate privelege for women to be men.

I agree. In classic feminism there is a lot of self-hatred.

Of course, one's gender is not one's true being - but it is very close to the core of life.

Certainly it is. For that reason I am very careful not to pressure women into becoming more conscious, or to belittle them for being what they are. To do so would be like belittling, say, a goldfish, for being only a goldfish and not being something else. To belittle goldfish would be very cruel considering that we people have bred goldfish for the sole reason that we enjoy looking at them and like having them around.

Is it more conscious to be obsessed with cars, and with polishing one's car than to be obsessed with one's wardrobe?

A man's car is a display of his masculinity (and consciousness), whereas a woman's clothes are a display of her femininity (and unconsciousness).

Having an impressive car, with lots of expensive and unnecessary gleaming chrome, huge tyres, and a monster sound system, is a sign that the fellow is able to produce a surplus of wealth.

The car is hard metal, and mechanical, like his mind. The car represents resistance, hard boundaries, and structure.

This car creates a hurricane.

By contrast, the woman displays her femininity by wearing clothes that offer no resistence, no structure, and are vulnerable.

She is blown-over by the slightest hint of a breeze.

A man of low consciousness is cruel and unaware of his cruelty. This is also a hallmark of masculine behaviors. So men who are unconscious tend to be unconscious of the reality of other beings. Women are rarely so.

I would say that when men are behaving badly it is because of their low level of consciousness - eg, they are aware of having a self, but are unaware of its impact on others. But women are only concerned for others because they do not have enough consciousness to be aware of having an individual self.

Also, since you only care about young and attractive women, you have tended to focus on juvenile feminine behaviors.

I'm more sexually attracted to young, healthy-looking and attractive women than I am to grey, wrinkled old ladies. I can't help that. It's probably genetic.

But even when women grow older and start wearing different clothing, I've found that they don't tend to become much more conscious, if at all.

Either women are inferior, or they are different.

How about we say that women are different, and that they are inferior in some ways and superior in others.

There's Weininger, a little Kierkegaard, a little Schopenhaeur, a little of Buddhism, a little Dave Sim, etc.

Don't forget Richard Zubaty. Did you ever get his book?

I have his book, but I think his observations are not anywhere near the same quality as those I mentioned. Zubaty's views are tainted by emotion and a lack of the deepest spiritual wisdom.

[David Quinn]

For that reason I am very careful not to pressure women into becoming more conscious, or to belittle them for being what they are. To do so would be like belittling, say, a goldfish, for being only a goldfish and not being something else. To belittle goldfish would be very cruel considering that we people have bred goldfish for the sole reason that we enjoy looking at them and like having them around.

Hahahaha. That's very funny.

But it could also be construed as underhanded. I know that if I was a woman I would be deeply insulted by your remarks here and think that you weren't being open and honest.

-

[Jamesh]

By contrast, the woman displays her femininity by wearing clothes that offer no resistence, no structure, and are vulnerable.

She is blown-over by the slightest hint of a breeze.

Just like a buddha pretends to be. Waving in the breeze of experience, without the projection of hard emotions on what is being experienced.

Not that I want to get into this discussion again. I'm a misanthrope, and prefer to care little for either sex. If women want to be submissive I'm all for it - it is only when they move to gain control of organisations, via other methods than proven long term superior beneficial decision making abilites, that I deeply cringe. It is bad enough for rationality to have to compete with the power of all the cretinous males who have controlled the world to date, and complicating the issue by bringing women and their collective, nurturing, non-meritorious decision making ways into the power game makes it a lot harder to see who needs to be fought against.

Yep, I cringe a lot these days, which is ego driven - but I also know that all human endeavour is one of gradual evolution, so what women and men might be now, is not what they will be in the future. If, as a species, we do not need intense rationality here in the now rather than in some imagined future, then it won't occur, if we do need it then it will come, or the species will die. No big deal either way, except of course my ego suggests it would be such a waste of universal opportunity for the human life chain to get so far into godhood, and to self-destruct. Mind you, I do think some form of self-destruction is the NECESSARY end outcome of any intelligent species anywhere, so I'm in two minds (as usual, and as is reality itself).

[Iolaus]

David said

But it could also be construed as underhanded. I know that if I was a woman I would be deeply insulted by your remarks here and think that you weren't being open and honest.

Yes, I did indeed take a couple of his remarks that way, or as tongue in
cheek.

Kevin

Of course, one's gender is not one's true being - but it is very close to the core of life.

Certainly it is. For that reason I am very careful not to pressure women into becoming more conscious, or to belittle them for being what they are.

By contrast, the woman displays her femininity by wearing clothes that offer no resistence, no structure, and are vulnerable.

Neither sex has a choice but to act in the way which is conducive to attracting a partner. So it would appear men are attracted to unconscious behaviors.

I haven't seen that Elizabeth makes that many mistakes. I don't discount that there was envy motivating the vacation thread. I think you are simple enough to read. You've been awkward with women, therefore either you are at fault or they. My father also came up with elaborate reasons why nearly all American women couldn't see what a marvelous love object he was. So you have chosen to find fault with women. You're certainly not the first. And of course, things wouldn't be interesting if there were no truth to it. Suppose women just happened to find you attractive, and you always had them wanting to give themselves to you, more than you required? Why do I suspect your whole life would have gone on a different course?

But putting that aside - I have fully grokked that men and women are so different that it is quite silly talking of making women more conscious, i.e., with male motivations. Women don't care about how things work. It seems to me that women must have a totally, utterly different path in life than men. How they shall find it I don't know. But this business of comparing them to men endlessly, over and over, twittering about it, never tiring of becoming aghast at the ten thousandth confirmation of the same facts.

Men are the inventors. Who the hell are women? It's a question I ponder, but generally refrain from disucssing it here because here there is no hope, only immature, boyish insistence upon crushing any argument that threatens your structure, the one that lets you live with the pain. It bothers your basic kindness but nonetheless you carry on.

women either have no path, or their own path. but they will never be men. And since we already have men, why we should want women to be men also is odd.

I would say that when men are behaving badly it is because of their low level of consciousness - eg, they are aware of having a self, but are unaware of its impact on others. But women are only concerned for others because they do not have enough consciousness to be aware of having an individual self.

As regards men, you have reiterated what I said - he knows he has a self, but the self of others is very vague to him, like distant material objects. This to me is like a death sentence. Anyone who is self absorbed lives in a kind of hell. But the idea that women care for others because they lack a self is just absurd. Women care for others because THEY CAN SEE THEM!!!

Women tend to be much less comfortable with cruelty to animals. Is that because they lack a self?

What about the idea that it is an illusion that we have a self? I don't actually believe that it is an illusion, but I do believe that it is simultaneously true that our individual personalities are not impregnable structures> Perhaps women never believe certain delusions to the same degree that men tend to. There's a lot of nonsense that women don't quite buy into because they lack the false confidence that men have. Men, being so aware of their selves, lack awareness of their smallness, they have a false bravado. And really, they do accomplish much with it, but at the same time, they may kill us all with it. women retain a sense of their own size and capacity in the face of something greater, such as nature.

But I have seen even more women than men, probably, who are locked into a self-absorbed hell.

'm more sexually attracted to young, healthy-looking and attractive women than I am to grey, wrinkled old ladies.

Yes, but my point was that you pay a lot of attention to youthful silliness that many people outgrow.

How about we say that women are different, and that they are inferior in some ways and superior in others.

But you don't believe that.

You will respond by naming some 'superiorities' of women that are anything but. But what has not really occured to you, and won't, is that women might actually be different.

When my father was five, someone informed him that girls didn't have a penis, and he was shocked.

[Carl G]

Kevin wrote:

A man's car is a display of his masculinity (and consciousness), whereas a woman's clothes are a display of her femininity (and unconsciousness).

Having an impressive car, with lots of expensive and unnecessary gleaming chrome, huge tyres, and a monster sound system, is a sign that the fellow is able to produce a surplus of wealth.

The car is hard metal, and mechanical, like his mind. The car represents resistance, hard boundaries, and structure.

This car creates a hurricane.

Creates a physical wind, yes, but this impressive car is not much more than a gaudy bauble with which to attract a female, in order to become her slave.

By contrast, the woman displays her femininity by wearing clothes that offer no resistence, no structure, and are vulnerable.

She is blown-over by the slightest hint of a breeze.

And yet she creates a hurricane...of men sucked into her centrifugal draft, following her, themselves trailing vortexes of the debris of all they are willing to discard of themselves, to be with her.

These metaphors work both ways, depending on how one wants to look at it.

[Kevin Solway]

It would appear men are attracted to unconscious behaviors.

That's exactly right. Consciousness is hellish and women are a holiday to men - a holiday from the pain of consciousness.

Suppose women just happened to find you attractive, and you always had them wanting to give themselves to you, more than you required? Why do I suspect your whole life would have gone on a different course?

Yes, my life would probably would have taken a different course - I would probably now be married and working for a start - but all my ideas can't be dismissed just because I'm not God's gift to women.

since we already have men, why we should want women to be men also is odd.

I am in agreement with you. I am keen to help women if they want to become more masculine, or what I would call "more conscious", but I'm not going to force the issue any more than I would try to force goldfish to be more than what they are.

Women care for others because THEY CAN SEE THEM!!!

I disagree with this. Women feel "merged" with everything in their environment but have no real understanding of their environment - which includes other people.

Women tend to be much less comfortable with cruelty to animals. Is that because they lack a self?

Yes. Women are identifying with, or merging with animals.

Importantly, it's not for a conscious and rational reason that women are concerned about the suffering of others. Women are very quick to call for the death penalty for anyone who doesn't meet with their approval.

Perhaps women never believe certain delusions to the same degree that men tend to.

This is true, but the same can be said of goldfish.

How about we say that women are different, and that they are inferior in some ways and superior in others.

But you don't believe that.

I do believe that, but the things I would say that women are superior at are things that don't sound all that grand.

It's not a high priority of mine to change women, but I do want men to recognize their similarity to women, and then to eliminate that feminine part of themselves if they are able.