Easily Confused

[Jason]

It seems that ever since the Zubaty interview the level of moronic posts on the masculine/feminine philosophy has skyrocketed. I still can't see much if anything positive coming out of the masculinist part of QSR philosophy. I'm not sure there's anything positive there to be had anyway, at best it seems an unfortunate and confusing mislabelling and redefining of the words "masculine" and "feminine". Idiotic posts launch into spiel after spiel about genetic and biological differences between genders. Male and masculine, female and feminine, become equated and interchangeable. Many of the posts appear to originate from a desire of the poster to raise their own self-esteem for simply being a male, or as a vehicle to help them justify their bitterness over a former relationship/partner.

What actually comes out of all this? Any real, valuable philosophy? You know philosophy, that thing where you try to find fundamental truths about that little thing called existence that is everywhere and everything, at all times, no matter if you have a penis or vagina? Not much of that type of activity arising out of masculinist discussions is there? So much energy and time spent focusing on gender, on the failings of those who are not good at philosophy, and the strengths of those who are good at philosophy.

Sure, if you've got a girlfriend or wife (or boyfriend or husband or friend or child or dog or pet fish, or whomever or whatever) who somehow is fucking with your ability to practice good philosophy, then that's maybe something you should look at, in order to possibly overcome that hindrance somehow.

But the reality is that most people(male or female) really don't have any serious interest in philosophy. That's right just people, not males or females, just people - they don't have any serious interest in philosophy. Shocking isn't it? But ya know what? I'm not sure it's going to do us, people who apparently do have a serious interest in philosophy, any good, philosophically, to continually focus large amounts of energy on that fact, break it down into little tiny bits to analyze over and over again. It sure doesn't seem to be leading anyone here to anywhere important.

[Matt Gregory]

The defining psychological difference between the sexes is the area you want to aim for and develop if you're interested in truth, that's why it's so useful to understand it. If you're not willing to alienate yourself from women and society for the sake of this understanding, then you're not 100% devoted to truth.

[Unidian]

If you're not willing to alienate yourself from women and society for the sake of this understanding, then you're not 100% devoted to truth.

Hehe... amazing that you can say this and yet have no idea what I'm getting at in the other thread.

Being devoted to truth involves sacrifices far greater than simply being disliked by feminists and politically-correct types. That's nothing, relatively speaking. When your integrity and commitment to your values is such that you find yourself standing in literal torn-up rags in a homeless shelter covered in open sores from head to toe because you refuse to knuckle under to deluded values, then you can run with big dogs.

[DHodges]

When your integrity and commitment to your values is such that you find yourself standing in literal torn-up rags in a homeless shelter covered in open sores from head to toe because you refuse to knuckle under to deluded values, then you can run with big dogs.

Hilarious.

[Unidian]

Laugh it up. All I need from you I get on April 15th of every year. Other than that you are irrelevant.

Unless of course you are not American. That would be a shame. Oh well, them's the breaks.

[David Quinn]

It seems that ever since the Zubaty interview the level of moronic posts on the masculine/feminine philosophy has skyrocketed. I still can't see much if anything positive coming out of the masculinist part of QSR philosophy. I'm not sure there's anything positive there to be had anyway, at best it seems an unfortunate and confusing mislabelling and redefining of the words "masculine" and "feminine". Idiotic posts launch into spiel after spiel about genetic and biological differences between genders. Male and masculine, female and feminine, become equated and interchangeable. Many of the posts appear to originate from a desire of the poster to raise their own self-esteem for simply being a male, or as a vehicle to help them justify their bitterness over a former relationship/partner.

What actually comes out of all this? Any real, valuable philosophy? You know philosophy, that thing where you try to find fundamental truths about that little thing called existence that is everywhere and everything, at all times, no matter if you have a penis or vagina? Not much of that type of activity arising out of masculinist discussions is there? So much energy and time spent focusing on gender, on the failings of those who are not good at philosophy, and the strengths of those who are good at philosophy.

Sure, if you've got a girlfriend or wife (or boyfriend or husband or friend or child or dog or pet fish, or whomever or whatever) who somehow is fucking with your ability to practice good philosophy, then that's maybe something you should look at, in order to possibly overcome that hindrance somehow.

But the reality is that most people(male or female) really don't have any serious interest in philosophy. That's right just people, not males or females, just people - they don't have any serious interest in philosophy. Shocking isn't it? But ya know what? I'm not sure it's going to do us, people who apparently do have a serious interest in philosophy, any good, philosophically, to continually focus large amounts of energy on that fact, break it down into little tiny bits to analyze over and over again. It sure doesn't seem to be leading anyone here to anywhere important.

Your point here would only make sense, Jason, if woman wasn't such a big attachment in nearly all people's minds, if she wasn't firmly at the centre of our deluded, worldly society, if she didn't have enormous psychological power over most people's minds, if she wasn't almost entirely comprised of seduction and illusion, if getting involved with her didn't have serious, life-changing consequences, and if feminine unconsciousness wasn't so lacking in potential when it comes to realizing truth.

In other words, if we were simply talking about people's attachment to ice-cream or music, then your point would have some substance. But instead, we're talking about something so pervasive, both externally in society and internally in our psyches, that it has to be addressed in great detail by anyone who is serious about giving up attachments and leading a truthful life.

Personally, I've always found that understanding the spectrum of 100% masculine consciousness at one end and 100% feminine consciousness at the other, and seeing how people slot into various positions within - all of us being comprised of a mixture of femininity and masculinity - to be a very handy spiritual tool. It's very useful in helping the spiritual person transcend woman, both externally and internally.

Of course, if a person has no intention of transcending woman, then yes, threads like this will seem moronic and a waste of time.

-

[Shardrol]

All I need from you I get on April 15th of every year. Other than that you are irrelevant.

Unless of course you are not American. That would be a shame. Oh well, them's the breaks.

This demonstration of childish petulance is not a very good advertisement for the spiritual fruits of your unemployment.

[Unidian]

Ah. But the mocking and verbal abuse by others can be overlooked, right?

Of course it can.

[Shardrol]

You announced yourself as a person of spiritual accomplishment:

With a few exceptions, I have become increasingly hesitant to take seriously any philosophical commentary by people who have jobs. Circumstances vary, but in many cases, their having jobs is a plain and obvious sign that their "spiritual" development is in some sense less than my own and therefore I need not pay much attention.

I'm just following up on that.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

if we were simply talking about people's attachment to ice-cream or music, then your point would have some substance. But instead, we're talking about something so pervasive, both externally in society and internally in our psyches,

Really? Music could easily adopt a definition as broad as what you have ascribed to Woman, and then it would be equally pervasive.

[Unidian]

I'm just following up on that.

Okay, fair enough. And as far as it goes, you're absolutely right. The "last laugh" sniping ought to be beneath me, and engaging in it belittles my message. Nobody's perfect, and I don't claim any special status. My patience has limits.

However, I think my point that the behavior of the others, who do in fact promote themselves as far superior in character to me, should be taken into account as well. I'm not the only one making a claim here. The others are implying a claim to advancement in their own way when they attempt to mock and belittle the points I've made. Otherwise, what authority would they have to say anything?

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth,

DQ: if we were simply talking about people's attachment to ice-cream or music, then your point would have some substance. But instead, we're talking about something so pervasive, both externally in society and internally in our psyches,

E: Really? Music could easily adopt a definition as broad as what you have ascribed to Woman, and then it would be equally pervasive.

True. If we stretched the definition of music to include everything that is womanly, then it would be equally pervasive.

Music could be thought of as the flow of feminine unconsciousness, females as the living embodiments of music, males trying to create some sense of structure within the music and beyond, and sages being entirely beyond music.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Unidian,

Matt: If you're not willing to alienate yourself from women and society for the sake of this understanding, then you're not 100% devoted to truth.

Unidian: Hehe... amazing that you can say this and yet have no idea what I'm getting at in the other thread.

Believe me, I get it. You're the one that's not getting me. I'm not going so far as to say that alienation is good. If can avoid alienation, then by all means don't waste your time dealing with it. But if you're avoiding it at the expense of truth, then you're compromising your integrity.

Being devoted to truth involves sacrifices far greater than simply being disliked by feminists and politically-correct types. That's nothing, relatively speaking. When your integrity and commitment to your values is such that you find yourself standing in literal torn-up rags in a homeless shelter covered in open sores from head to toe because you refuse to knuckle under to deluded values, then you can run with big dogs.

The only sacrifice that is necessary to make is the sacrifice of ignorance. Everything else is a matter of practicality. I certainly don't think any of it carries any moral weight in itself.

[DHodges]

Unidian, are you a "big dog" ?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

{}---{}

[Leyla Shen]

It seems as if these few good men all have a few things in common; they believe women were an obstacle to attaining consciousness.

Au contrare. Women are an obstacle of consciousness. There is a difference.

I have not checked out the posts you mentioned. I will do so, and get back to the rest of your post, as time permits.

[Unidian]

Believe me, I get it. You're the one that's not getting me. I'm not going so far as to say that alienation is good. If can avoid alienation, then by all means don't waste your time dealing with it. But if you're avoiding it at the expense of truth, then you're compromising your integrity.

I don't disagree with this.

Unidian, are you a "big dog" ?

Yep, relatively speaking. One is large or small in the context of the crowd one is associated with. If I were hanging with Nagarjuna, Chuang Tzu, and Buddha, I'd be a very small dog indeed. No more than a harmless Yorkshire Terrier at best. But around here, I'm a German Shepherd at least. I wouldn't say a Great Dane, because that would be a bit egotistical. :p

One's stature is measured by the autheticity of one's everyday lifestyle, and how closely it conforms to truth and reality to the degree which one understands them. Are you a big dog, dhodges? Only you can know for sure.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

One's stature is measured by the autheticity of one's everyday lifestyle, and how closely it conforms to truth and reality to the degree which one understands them. Are you a big dog, dhodges? Only you can know for sure.

Perhaps, but I judge Hodges to be human.

[Unidian]

Who do you judge to be "not human?"

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

My ex.

[Unidian]

Well, good call. From what I've heard, he wasn't.

[Jason]

David you completely missed the points I was making. Funnily enough part of the reason why you appear to have done so is because you, one of the originators of this masculinist philosophy, have mistaken "male" for "masculine", "feminine" for "female" and "Woman" for women. Your confusion arises even when I was being nice and trying to play along with the QSR perversions of those words. And ironically this very type of confusion over such terms is one of the points I was making.

[David Quinn]

David you completely missed the points I was making. Funnily enough part of the reason why you appear to have done so is because you, one of the originators of this masculinist philosophy, have mistaken "male" for "masculine", "feminine" for "female" and "Woman" for women. Your confusion arises even when I was being nice and trying to play along with the QSR perversions of those words. And ironically this very type of confusion over such terms is one of the points I was making.

So you have never had the flexibility of mind and intelligence to apply these terms appropriately in each context?

-

[yougetajob]

The guy who runs the site that shardrol started this thread about, menarebetterthanwomen.com, was on Dr. Phil today. He's part of an on going segment called the "Dr. Phil House". In this instance a bunch of judgemental people are forced to live together with the cameras rolling 24/7. Father Phil then comes in and tries to show them that they are wrong and why he feels they became this way. It's very amusing. There's also a fundie christian, a man hater, a black women who hates black people, an anti-civ/everyone sucks/anarchist type guy, and a women who just likes being a bitch, particulary to ugly people. It took about ten seconds for the black white supremicist and the man hater to be psychoanalysed reasonably well . It'll be interesting to see what happens with the menarebetterthanwomen guy. He seems much more intelligent than the other guests.

[ZenMuadDib]

Here's a site that could easily be confused with Genius Forum these days.

Anybody who says X hates Y, where Y is a country or a group of people I have a problem with.