Poison for the Heart - and Women

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Jesus wept, Nat. Do you realise that this stupid mantra - this single non argument - you keep trotting out all the time shows that you have no argument? It makes you look desperate to have a point.

Actually, this makes you look like you have not heard him yet.

[Dan Rowden]

There's a difference between Nat stating his own point of view and arguments against ours. The two are not synonymous.

[Imadrongo]

True - but that's no reason to advocate the nonsense I see around here. Killing female infants will solve nothing, and will make monsters of those who do it (or seriously advocate it) in the process.

The Nazis had a few good points, too. And look how that turned out...

A gay monster is worth more,
than a sentimental bore.

[Iolaus]

BTW: *this* is the time of year in the temperate zone to go into the woods to look for Amanita Muscaria.

There's no rain, Daybrown.

[Jamesh]

Watched 10 Canoes last night. It is a simple story about abo's. Good film.

lol, it is amazing how consistent the manner in which women acted and were treated, seems to be across the range of primitive cultures, and for which more than just traces of the same type of mindset, is still completely evident in todays society, ie like chatter, nagging and dependence (which is not to say that certain negative primitive male traits are not also obvious).

It is extraordinary how much control they have nowadays, even in such cultures, after coming from such a low power base (an existence as a kind of property + male responsibility).

[Iolaus]

Elizabeth,

You say that attitudes such as shown by Skipair is the reason you fight so hard. But has it occurred to you that the fight is futile because the conclusions are predetermined and for emotional reasons? Look at the absurd response, disguised in an "Atta boy!" format given to Daybrown, who has had a markedly different experience of women?

He confuses certain truths, such as that women are attracted to men who are well put together, i.e., confident to deal with the world (and men are likewise attracted to confident and poised women) and who possess certain masculine, leadership strengths, and twist that into a belief that the women care only about that and all else is deception or manipulation. Whereas isn't it obvious that a woman who is smart and of some depth will prefer a man to whom she can talk, who can provide interesting comanionship, just as any human being would want in their friends?

You know, Elizabeth, there is yet another dichotomy between the ability to discern, and the judgmentalness that is encouraged and permeates this forum. Smugness/disgust and true enlightenment don't mix.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

My first theory was that all I had to do was be myself to show an example of a female who did not match their Woman accusations to help change some minds. I think I eventually made some progress with that method on James, Scott, and maybe Trevor, although I think that Trevor had a more rational view of what females are to begin with.

There were times when I thought that I had sufficiently explained another point of view that I had made some progress with David and Kevin, but not only do they have an attachment to the way they viewed women when they were Weininger's age, but they are also too easily influenced by the peer pressure to keep spouting those immature views. It's like they are keeping each other stuck in the "girls have cooties" stage of development. Other than that one area, they are really great guys. (Dan, I'm not forgetting you - it's just that I never thought I had any kind of influence on you whatsoever).

A lot of my fighting is futile, but some of it is not. I am considering that I have done all that I can do in this arena, and I am focusing more of my time and effort elsewhere. It would be nice if more of a cavalry would show up so I could take a break without feeling like I'm abandoning my post. I do appreciate the help I get from you and others from time to time, and I recognize that you have been at this much longer than I have. If I can more effectively reach a broader audience elsewhere, I will. Meanwhile, I'm just doing what I'm caused to do, or doing my cause, or however you want to look at it. It doesn't matter to me anymore how I get labeled.

[Iolaus]

Elizabeth,

If the woman accusations are true, then you'll make no progress. If they're not true, then you'll make little or no progress, because the opinions would be held for irrational reasons in the first place.

What's worse is that they're partially true, and the error consists mostly of wild exaggeration.

The longer I live the more I'm convinced and the scientific evidence shows that men and women are different. So I take this as a given and don't exactly try to fight it. In my opinion most of feminism, and the line-toeing women here try to fight it, try to be men. Now, in some ways a masculine ideal is not a bad thing for society to admire, and for women to have a little aspiration towards it. A dose of masculine drive, clarity and purpose might be a requirement to progress. Also, I've never considered myself a typical woman, and have always preferred the company of men. Nonetheless, I don't think the answer lies in this constant denigration of woman and the feminine, nor the immature and life-opposing anti-sex, anti-love and anti-procreation ideas batted around in this arena of neurotic babies. I also think that the gauntlet here has been thrown down with the challenge for women to match men, and this will never happen. Women, not being men, can never measure up, and that is the futile and cruel idea that is being promoted here.

What they are good at here is understanding nonduality, mostly on a physical level. You can get some cool altered states of consciousness off of contemplating that. And I mean it's good, it can really stay with you in a permanent way.

Is it true that women are less conscious than men? Or are they conscious of different things? Is there perhaps the 10:1 rule operating here? The ten to one rule is that for every 10 male geniuses you get one woman, i.e., men have a wider spectrum and women do not stray to the outer borders of genius or imbecility as often, nor are they philosophical pioneers as often either. There's no doubt women have a narrower sphere of focus than men. Men are interested in living and nonliving things. Women are interested in living things. Women have a fundamental prejudice toward life. The old stereotype is true: men are more cerebral and women more emotional. It's not that women aren't smart, but they are not as motivated to manipulate the physical sphere. Men have emotion, but pay less attention to it.

I have a few hints, but the conclusions aren't easily drawn: do women have any strengths? Because when men try, they are also intuitive, understanding of emotion and so forth. Women care more about detail. And as I take an interest in the evolution/intelligent design debates, I find myself impressed with the fact that detail is really what life is about. Darwin saw a blob of goo on the early microscopes, and he thought that was a good representation of a cell. But we now know that a cell has billions of individual components and the complexity boggles the mind, and yet none of us would be walking and talking and admiring this amazing universe without those details.

Of course, it was no woman who put the machinery of the cell together. That was a man, no doubt about it.

The guys here say men create the spaces that women flow into. What the hell are women for? To be exactly like men? God forbid and the universe would collapse if they could.

Duality is strong and it requires yin and yang. You can't have yang and yang and have a universe.

Woman represents life, always has, always will. Emotion cannot ever be overcome because it is the soul itself. This is why the philosophy here is evil. No matter how many gifts the male has, the woman always represents the inscrutible life force, existence itself, out of which flows the possiblity of the male, out of which flows the possiblity of mind, of the Word of God, the organizing force, the calling of order out of chaos.

I suspect, but am not sure, that woman's spiritual path might be different, and might come to a different end than a man's. That all the spiritual literature is male oriented. The role models. too. That we have no real wise women to teach us. Perhaps that is the nature of kali yuga. I don't know. But if it is true that there is only the male path, then perhaps it is also true that women are doomed. Because our brains are different, and if the male is the standard, we have little hope. Even with the brain configuration crossover that occurs in certain types of homosexuals, it is probably not enough, nor much comfort to think that the occasional dyke might have a shot.

Kevin makes much of the supposed suffering of increased consciousness, at which opinion I marvel. If you want courage, if you want suffering, try being an empath.

I think it is completely hypocritical to teach, as David does in his book, that there is a seamless unity of all things on the physical level - the Totality - and to mock psychic unity and those who experience it as being 'merged' with the other being as if that meant they lost their souls and had no individuality. This is where they give away their game. If a woman is more attuned to the suffering of other beings, how is this not a sign of the greatest awareness that we can have - that of Being itself, the core of God, of consciousness. The highest truth taught is that in reality there is One being. Just as nirvana is samsara, so is individuality unity, and unity individuality. Our plight is that we are aware of individuality and have lost sight of unity. Thus our existential despair and fear. They teach unity, but mock unity consciousness. If there is One being, we are all aspects of that being, and if we are that, then advanced consciousness would consist in not abstractly recognizing the likelihood that other beings are real, but knowing that it is so via the only way one could know such a thing: by experiencing it. And, I think, until we do experience that the existential despair will continue. And if it is true that there is One being, and that the Totality is a seamless onething, it stands to reason that our consciousness should be able to overcome our strange barrier of separateness from one another.

But they recognize only the physical. They speak of God, but flee from its deepest implications.

Truly I say unto you, Elizabeth, there are few worthy to enter the bridal chamber.

Not that the requirements are stringent. All you need is desire, but most are afraid.

They are shy virgins, these men.

So this is what I want from you. A real adult conversation about woman's spiritual path and potential, without the baggage and negative assumptions. If you need to smoke a little pot, go ahead.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Excellent post Iolaus.

So this is what I want from you. A real adult conversation about woman's spiritual path and potential, without the baggage and negative assumptions.

Yes, ma'am. I'll get back to writing the book today. I had local issues to deal with and set it aside, but I'm back on track as of this moment. Perhaps the truly best I can do is finish this thing and get it published. I'll be back when I'm done, and I'll read here in the meantime. Thank you. Please help babysit the boys while I'm "gone."

[Pye]

.

Interesting post, Iolaus. I might add that intellectually loving the Totality on the one hand, and seeking to destroy 1/2 of it on the other (yin) is incoherent at best. It's interesting to me, too, that you use such sexual metaphor to approach spirituality ("brides" and stuff like that). I think discussions of a person's spiritual experiences are just as personal as this. And maybe, in an odd way, just as exhibitionist and lewd.


.

[Kevin Solway]

You very clearly expressed your views in this post, Iolaus. They are still wrong, but I will try again to explain why.

I also think that the gauntlet here has been thrown down with the challenge for women to match men, and this will never happen.

Never say never! What about in a thousand years? Or two thousand years?

That's not to diminish the women of the present. And, also, that's not to say that men can't also do with waking up.

Women, not being men, can never measure up, and that is the futile and cruel idea that is being promoted here.

It would be cruel, if that's what we were doing. The important thing to remember is that people change. They don't change quickly, but they do eventually - whether they like it or not. Women are not a static entity.

The guys here say men create the spaces that women flow into. What the hell are women for? To be exactly like men? God forbid and the universe would collapse if they could.

Not everything in the Universe can be exactly like a man. Even the parts of a man's body are not like a man, since they lack consciousness. And the brain, on its own, lacks the consciousness of a man. The whole world is full of things that lack consciousness.

So there is no requirement for women to become like men. I say they should only try to become more like men if they want to. There is no shame in not wanting a greater share of consciousness (which is the essence of genius). There are many men who want to become women - in the literal and conventional sense - and who can blame them? Nobody should blame them.

Duality is strong and it requires yin and yang. You can't have yang and yang and have a universe.

Even if there were no women in existence at all, and if all men had no feminine traits in them whatsoever (except for their unconscious body parts), the Universe would still have a balance of yin and yang. Nothing can touch the balance of the Universe.

Woman represents life, always has, always will.

"Life" is a vague term.

Weininger argues that woman represents the "sexual function", which is to say, pair-bonding (matchmaking), sex, reproduction, mothering, etc. If that's what you man by "life", then I'll agree.

Alternatively, I would be happy to say that woman represents "life" in the same way that a newborn baby, of any species, represents life. Or even that she represents "life" in the same way that the ocean represents it, or the earth.

In all cases it is largely, if not entirely, unconscious life.

Emotion cannot ever be overcome because it is the soul itself.

Emotion is not the soul of a man.

Honestly.

At least, it's certainly not my soul.

No matter how many gifts the male has, the woman always represents the inscrutible life force, existence itself, out of which flows the possiblity of the male, out of which flows the possiblity of mind, of the Word of God, the organizing force, the calling of order out of chaos.

Consciousness is always the organizing force. Science, for example, was created by consciousness.

Kevin makes much of the supposed suffering of increased consciousness, at which opinion I marvel. If you want courage, if you want suffering, try being an empath.

Women are tormented by a thousand voices, and a man is tormented by one. But that one!

I think it is completely hypocritical to teach, as David does in his book, that there is a seamless unity of all things on the physical level - the Totality - and to mock psychic unity and those who experience it as being 'merged' with the other being as if that meant they lost their souls and had no individuality.

There are two types of "unity". The first type of unity is what we see in a newborn child. This child is carefree, unashamed of their nakedness, a voice that does not hold back, and with a fearless eye that knows no boundaries. So sensitive are they, that they can tell their mother's mood from another room.

Or consider how a tree is seemlessly connected to the world around it, so that it's impossible to find where the tree begins or ends.

Consider now, that the second type of unity is that of the Buddhas - the enlightened - who have all the same as the newborn child, but in full consciousness.

Women have very much of the former when compared to the latter.

The former, the newborn baby and the tree, have (essentially) no individuality, no real will, and no real understanding.

This is where they give away their game. If a woman is more attuned to the suffering of other beings, how is this not a sign of the greatest awareness that we can have - that of Being itself, the core of God, of consciousness.

All animals are gifted with an intuitive awareness of the world around them. This is necessary for survival.

But women are not aware of God, because if they were, the world would be full of female sages and geniuses.

Our plight is that we are aware of individuality and have lost sight of unity. Thus our existential despair and fear. They teach unity, but mock unity consciousness.

Let me give you a concrete example of why this "merged" oneness - the blind or unconscious oneness - is a problem.

If a male alcoholic has a female partner, it is common for that woman to be what is known as an "enabler". She supports and feeds his habit, without being conscious of doing so. She is at "one" with him. So terribly empathetic. Wherever he goes, she goes. They move together.

In a nutshell, that's the problem of the kind of oneness that women experience.

A woman's son might be the most evil mass-murderer on the planet, yet she will love and protect him all the same, including lying to the police, etc.

A woman is not at one with the whole Universe, but only with her immediate environment.

Nichiren, the Buddhist Master, says: "Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions."

He speaks of exactly the same phenomenon: the water is shaped by its immediate environment.

And if it is true that there is One being, and that the Totality is a seamless onething, it stands to reason that our consciousness should be able to overcome our strange barrier of separateness from one another.

Nature will always cause some things to lack sufficient consciousness to become consciously aware of their lack of separateness. But there's always hope for an individual to become more conscious if that's what they truly want.

[skipair]

You say that attitudes such as shown by Skipair is the reason you fight so hard.

Elizabeth ultimately fights so hard because it excites her. I have no doubt that she feels her principles are correct, but they are correct based on the emotional quality of her experience, not from rational thought. The context here is that she is getting support and cheers from other women, and having the guys fight among themselves about who is right. All very dramatic!

But has it occurred to you that the fight is futile because the conclusions are predetermined and for emotional reasons?

[Pure irony.] If only this were still the case! While growing up and realizing my mother, father, and God were no longer the meaning of my life, I was 100% confident that meaning was found in a wife and having children. I was taught that the wife came before everything, and I was driven to become the best husband I could be. This was my new answer that wrapped a warm blanket around me and sang me a lullaby at night. It was really very wonderful.

I was ripped out of that world - kicking and screaming. There is only sparse emotional debris left. Sometimes I think twice before helping a friend rip himself out too - its not all that pleasant, but at the very least, it is correct. And I choose this correctness over the emotional coddling.

It is like Neo from the Matrix deciding whether or not he wants to know the truth: will it be the red pill or the blue pill? Most guys aren't really given the chance the choose, which is why I take the time to write.

Look at the absurd response, disguised in an "Atta boy!" format given to Daybrown, who has had a markedly different experience of women?

Well, given that it was likely the girls who orchestrated it, I suppose I should really be giving the high five to them!

He confuses certain truths, such as that women are attracted to men who are well put together, i.e., confident to deal with the world (and men are likewise attracted to confident and poised women) and who possess certain masculine, leadership strengths, and twist that into a belief that the women care only about that and all else is deception or manipulation. Whereas isn't it obvious that a woman who is smart and of some depth will prefer a man to whom she can talk, who can provide interesting comanionship, just as any human being would want in their friends?

Translation: "Friendship and companionship is BORING. Maybe someday a guy will actually not listen to my silly words and will fuck me in the dark corner of a club like I've always secretly dreamed."

[tooyi]

It is like Neo from the Matrix deciding whether or not he wants to know the truth: will it be the red pill or the blue pill? Most guys aren't really given the chance the choose, which is why I take the time to write.

It was funny to listen people talk and whine about how there had to be three episodes to the movie when obviously even one would have been enough.

There were three episodes because the dude was enveloped in woman. He said it to the white bearded old man himself. The old man replied that it doesn't matter because she will die anyway, but nobody was there to listen. Hell, let everything and everyone else be damned, the drama in woman feels more important, so it must be, right?

What a way to not take any cues. Truth written everywhere on every mouth in the matrix and no ears to hear any of it.


Morpheus: "Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more."

Dammit. Nothing more. It seems so hard to get, really.

[Unidian]

Dan,

Jesus wept, Nat. Do you realise that this stupid mantra - this single non argument - you keep trotting out all the time shows that you have no argument? It makes you look desperate to have a point.

There are people here who have advocated killing female infants. That is a fact of enormous relevance. In fact, it is sufficient to completely annihilate the credibility of those who do it instantly. This is something that you should consider very important. It is going to be 100 or 1000 times harder to reach potentially thoughtful people with any of your sane material while there are people here running around saying that babies or elderly people should die in the name of Wisdom and so forth. Nobody wants any part of that, because it's obvious lunacy.

How you never seem to see this beyond me. You always insist that it isn't a big deal. Seriously, do you guys actually want to go anywhere or accomplish anything with your efforts? If so, that kind of thing absolutely has to go - no ifs, ands, or buts. Surely you know this is true.

But hey, your call to make. If you want it to never amount to anything more than an internet message board, keep telling yourself that what I'm pointing to is nothing to worry about.

[Dan Rowden]

What you're pointing to is in my estimation a bucket of bulldust, which is why I dismiss it. But then you're an anti-abortionist and I'm not, which is a component of our disagreement on this matter. Let's say one accepts the ethical viability of first trimester abortion; in the context of that acceptance there is no further ethical issue with targeting a specific gender if circumstance warranted it. If, for example, at some point in the future there were far too many males on the planet and this presented certain dire implications for humanity I would have no problem at all with a male targeted abortion program.

[Jamesh]

A woman is not at one with the whole Universe, but only with her immediate environment.

While that is true, you must accept that to progress in wisdom, to remove the affect of one's more animal emotions on one's thought processes requires progressive steps of conceptual breakthroughs using masculine emotions/drives/mental strength/courage, but that which follows requires a unity of masculinity and femininity so as to be a neutralising effect and to create mental stability. Don't you see how equally masculine and feminine sages are? The indifference to emotions (a feminisation of the affects of emotions) and the calmness of a sage, does not come from a masculine mind, but as a unity created from aspects of both masculinity and femininity. One's thoughts in relation to solving problems or finding answers or teaching others are primarily masculine, but the rest of one's actions, as outcomes such as an acceptance of a non-self, are feminine.

We accept that (those positive forms of) masculinity is what will drive people to wisdom, is what will break down existing false ideaology, but we do not accept that same will result in growth unless it merges with it's opposite "femininity" and thus becoems capable of forming new or altered conceptual and emotional unities. If a person remains masculine, always striving and reaching out for more, then they'll just end up being dictator types - they won't grow in wisdom but will become spears thrusting endlessly and damagingly into feminity that is external to their mind, rather than femininity within their mind. We all see this in those youngsters who most earnestly agree with your philosophy, and we see it sometimes in the QRS (with stuff like a wish that the world would change so that it would be okay to masculise women by pumping testosterone into female babies).

[David Quinn]

An innocuous trip to the US is treated as a major crime. The advocation of killing female infants is offered with barely a concern. The people are puzzled.

-

[Iolaus]

Godspeed, Elizabeth, but the boys are a hopeless cause.

Pye,

It's interesting to me, too, that you use such sexual metaphor to approach spirituality ("brides" and stuff like that). I think discussions of a person's spiritual experiences are just as personal as this. And maybe, in an odd way, just as exhibitionist and lewd.

Our universe is all sexual. Only the ineffable One beyond name and form is not gendered, because it contains the seed of both genders. Everything else is duality, is yin-yang, is sexual. It's the way this place is run, why it works. Your heartbeat works on the same principle as the orgasm.

We must surrender to God like a female, and we must pursue the mystery as a male.

[Kevin Solway]

A woman is not at one with the whole Universe, but only with her immediate environment.

While that is true, you must accept that to progress in wisdom, to remove the affect of one's more animal emotions on one's thought processes requires progressive steps of conceptual breakthroughs using masculine emotions/drives/mental strength/courage, but that which follows requires a unity of masculinity and femininity so as to be a neutralising effect and to create mental stability.

That's a big sentence.

Let's break it down a bit.

. . . but that which follows requires a unity of masculinity and femininity so as to be a neutralising effect and to create mental stability.

Until we are perfectly, 100% conscious, we will be lumbered with a combination of both conscious and unconscious "thinking". I wouldn't say there is a "unity" of consciousness and unconsciousness (or of rationality and irrationality, or of logic and illogic). But there is an uneasy truce, with each threatening to gain the upper hand.

Don't you see how equally masculine and feminine sages are?

Perhaps you are thinking of the equanimity, the even-handedness, the peacefulness, and the openness of the sage. These are all signs of being supremely masculine rather than of being feminine. Femininity gives the illusion of these things, but it's only an illusion.

outcomes such as an acceptance of a non-self, are feminine.

As in the examples I gave in my previous post, the "acceptance" we see in women is unconscious rather than conscious. That's why women accept and merge with whatever evil is being told to them, or done to them, so readily.

If a person remains masculine, always striving and reaching out for more, then they'll just end up being dictator types

Not once they become the ruler or dictator of their own mind. For then they will be free, and won't feel any hunger for power and other such crude things.

[Pye]

.

Iolaus: "sexual" "dual" parings, even heartbeat orgasm principles - that's okay. I'm talking about talking about spirituality. I mean simply that it is as personal as that, and equally inviting to braggadocio.

Iolaus: Godspeed, Elizabeth, but the boys are a hopeless cause.

God is not possible for you, Iolaus (Kevin), and all you really value is being fucked in a dark corner (skipair).

Indeed, the soil is permanently salted here, so that only things like this can thrive.


.

[Iolaus]

Kevin,

They are still wrong, but I will try again to explain why.

Pretty sure of yourself there, eh? Well, it's not like I would expect anything new.

Never say never! What about in a thousand years? Or two thousand years?

Drivel. You remind me of the guy at the party that got my whole thing started. Wanted to go to Russia, not speaking the language, and replace it's 1,000 and even 2,000 year old church about which he knew nothing and which ignorant state of his did not occur to him, and annihilate it, unexamined, by replacing it with his faddish protestantism. He wanted to kill something that contained beauty he didn't see, and wisdom far greater than the pablum he had to offer.

The only way women will measure up to men is to be men.

It would be cruel, if that's what we were doing. The important thing to remember is that people change. They don't change quickly, but they do eventually - whether they like it or not. Women are not a static entity.

Sure, maybe we're all about to evolve but even if so the women will have their womanhood as the platform from which to evolve and the men will still be different from them. Women have different brains than men do. If it is so that women can change sufficiently in the way you hope, then there would be more women who would deserve your good opinion now. But the litany from you folks is that such women do not exist. Like Weininger said, the most base and stupid male is higher than the best woman and all that. I don't think you can have it both ways.
You want women anihilated, but I am pursuing a different line of inquiry.

There are many men who want to become women - in the literal and conventional sense - and who can blame them? Nobody should blame them.

You imagine it has something to do with their spiritual cowardice, but a man with a normal male brain does not want to become a woman, no matter what a lunk he may be.

Even if there were no women in existence at all, and if all men had no feminine traits in them whatsoever (except for their unconscious body parts), the Universe would still have a balance of yin and yang. Nothing can touch the balance of the Universe.

The universe might be alright, but not the humans. They must have a self contained balance. And, as all things are a constant replay, over and over, of the positive and negative principles, we are not going to have a human race which does not reflect that penultimate cosmic truth. Therefore we must understand and work with it and through it. Rejecting that, you are stuck for this lifetime. So be it.

"Life" is a vague term.

It is, because it is a subtle energy that we don't understand.

Weininger argues that woman represents the "sexual function", which is to say, pair-bonding (matchmaking), sex, reproduction, mothering, etc. If that's what you man by "life", then I'll agree.

No, that is what they do, and it is through this that they have to grow and expand, rather than trying to be men. But I am talking about something a little more abstract. Unfortunately, it is an elusive topic. I need to think more about it.

Alternatively, I would be happy to say that woman represents "life" in the same way that a newborn baby, of any species, represents life. Or even that she represents "life" in the same way that the ocean represents it, or the earth.

Perhaps. So for the human race, woman represents that for us.

Emotion is not the soul of a man.

Without emotion, you would be a computer.

Emotion is a tricky topic as well as regards spiritual progress. Jed McKenna says that all emotion amounts to states of consciousness, and that the enlightenment he is presenting is further, beyond any state of consciousness. He says that as long as you are in a state of consciousness, you are in the dream. Yet it is difficult to be sure he knows what he's talking about. One finds, or at least I find, that my emotions are less and less compelling. But it is a mistake to suppose that the end is no emotion. What happens is that humans are caught up in silly dramas, and the emotions and false ideas are a vicious circle which appears utterly pointless to the more advanced human. But again, that does not mean emotion hasn't any validity, or can be or should be eradicated.

At least, it's certainly not my soul.

And what is your soul?

Consciousness is always the organizing force. Science, for example, was created by consciousness.

I think of consciousness as being just awareness. I would say that science was created by intent coupled with awareness.

Women are tormented by a thousand voices, and a man is tormented by one.

What do you mean?
Also, the remark had nothing to do with what I said.

There are two types of "unity". The first type of unity is what we see in a newborn child. This child is carefree, unashamed of their nakedness, a voice that does not hold back, and with a fearless eye that knows no boundaries. So sensitive are they, that they can tell their mother's mood from another room.

Or consider how a tree is seemlessly connected to the world around it, so that it's impossible to find where the tree begins or ends.

Consider now, that the second type of unity is that of the Buddhas - the enlightened - who have all the same as the newborn child, but in full consciousness.

Women have very much of the former when compared to the latter.

The former, the newborn baby and the tree, have (essentially) no individuality, no real will, and no real understanding.

1. women are not like the babies in the first paragraph. It's astonishing you would think so. women are a bit more childish than men, but men are in some ways more childish than women. Men have a more adult and responsible role, because they are freer from the care of children.
If the tree is seamlessly connected to the world, then aren't you also seamlessly connected?

2. The carefree Buddha has become childlike through a process of discarding opinions and beliefs, and he has what you call full consciousness because he is, after all, an adult which makes him very different than a child. There is nothing particularly difficult about a woman doing this.

I'm not sure you're describing unity, though. I am talking about having a fluid consciousness that can either merge or not merge with other consciousnesses.

All animals are gifted with an intuitive awareness of the world around them. This is necessary for survival.

Not what I was talking about. The issue is one of greater identification with other beings, especially with their suffering.

But women are not aware of God, because if they were, the world would be full of female sages and geniuses.

You don't even believe in God. Women are atheists in far fewer numbers than men.

Our plight is that we are aware of individuality and have lost sight of unity. Thus our existential despair and fear. They teach unity, but mock unity consciousness.

Let me give you a concrete example of why this "merged" oneness - the blind or unconscious oneness - is a problem.

If a male alcoholic has a female partner, it is common for that woman to be what is known as an "enabler". She supports and feeds his habit, without being conscious of doing so. She is at "one" with him. So terribly empathetic. Wherever he goes, she goes. They move together.

In a nutshell, that's the problem of the kind of oneness that women experience.

A woman's son might be the most evil mass-murderer on the planet, yet she will love and protect him all the same, including lying to the police, etc.

Kevin this is such drivel. I am talking about existential aloneness and its relief, and you are talking about low-life neurotics, and as if the women are somehow worse than men! As if men are not enablers too! As if most women would defend their sons despite them being mass murderers! You live in a fantasy world. Kevin, the raising of criminals is something that interests me, and I have studied it in the real world, through anecdotes of actual people and reports. This is a very small subset of humans, and there are indeed mothers, and fathers too, who encourage their boys to become criminals through a childhood training that keeps them at a toddler stage of awarenss of other beings. These parents defend their children no matter what they do, but most parents are not like that. To extrapolate that a criminal mother represents all mothers as though her criminal son were utterly unrelated to her attidudes in raising him merely reinforces my doubts as to your ability to think objectively. The criminal son often has a criminal mother and her criminality expresses itself in training him to have a criminal mindset. You only make yourself a noncredible person when you fail to discriminate between people. This is why I wanted to talk with Elizabeth. It is very hard to respect your mind when it is so pointlessly wasted.

I know a woman who told her son that if joined the army and went to Iraq, she would never speak to him again.

At any rate, these types of people are very unconscious. Agreed.

A woman is not at one with the whole Universe, but only with her immediate environment.

It is always these generalizations. Most people are not as aware as they should be. Who is at one with the whole Universe? Only God. But for a start, it might be useful to be at one with one's immediate neighbor. I did not try to say that women in general are at one with the universe. I am saying that they seem to cross the barrier that divides us and is delusional, more easily than men.

I am not actually trying to have the conversation in which I defend women against your overgeneralizations. I am going in another direction, and I don't think you have any intention of coming along. You have no role but to create pessimism on this exploration.

I don't think the advanced, realized human being will be all feminine or all masculine. It is entirely possible that masculine traits are absolutely necessary for certain aspects of the journey, and that women need to utilize their masculine side. Or increase it. Or that some women might be just too low in their possession of said traits. But I think that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Women have different ego problems than men. They might not need as much testosterone to fight a different battle. That does not mean that testosterone is not a magnificent and essential hormone.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the problem is in regard to criminal people. I would not say that they are too merged or lack individuality. They lack a view of the bigger picture, they lack a conscience. I think actually that they are insufficiently merged with something higher than themselves. their personal sphere is all they see; that is not a lack of individuality, although it is a very undeveloped individuality.

In the case of a very undeveloped man and woman, it is probably true that the man will nonetheless have a wider sphere of attention, because men care more about the outer world, the physical world. Perhaps that alone is why women's thoughts are less focused. The physical world is more persistent and reliable than the inner world.

Yes, this is a great challenge. Few women make much headway within it. I feel a henid coming on...

Nichiren, the Buddhist Master, says: "Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions."

Well, then, what happens when they run into the strong will of a good man? At any rate, I don't agree that this is a very useful generalization. It is often true, and it is often true of men as well. Men submit to leaders more readily than women do. Even when women submit, it is an outer submission, but they disagree privately in their own thoughts. This does not bother them, being more catlike than doglike.

[Iolaus]

Pye,

Iolaus: "sexual" "dual" parings, even heartbeat orgasm principles - that's okay. I'm talking about talking about spirituality. I mean simply that it is as personal as that, and equally inviting to braggadocio.

Yes, yes, I agree. but I think the sexual metaphors are based upon the reality of the situation, that it is indeed the way it is.

It's one reason Jesus said (in the gospel of Thomas, which didn't make it into the Bible) that while many are standing around the bridal chamber, only those who are alone will get in. Interesting statement, since their aloneness in this case is obviously an interior one.

[Kevin Solway]

He wanted to kill something that contained beauty he didn't see.

I know this isn't what you had in mind, but most men will agree with you that women are beautiful just as they are, and the more feminine the better!

If it is so that women can change sufficiently in the way you hope, then there would be more women who would deserve your good opinion now.

Into the future we will have more ability to change our own genetics, or chemically alter our brains, and this will make it easier for women to change - if they want to.

Emotion is not the soul of a man.

Without emotion, you would be a computer.

Then I am a computer, with values, goals, ambitions, and understanding.

When I say that emotion is not my soul, I mean that I will listen to my reason (which, in my case, includes my intuition) ahead of my emotions.

And what is your soul?

My connection to truth - which is my consciousness of truth - which is in turn dependent on reason.

What happens is that humans are caught up in silly dramas, and the emotions and false ideas are a vicious circle which appears utterly pointless to the more advanced human. But again, that does not mean emotion hasn't any validity, or can be or should be eradicated.

If emotions naturally cease to arise once you are thinking true thoughts, then it is natural to let them go.

Consciousness is always the organizing force. Science, for example, was created by consciousness.

I think of consciousness as being just awareness.

That's probably why you don't like me saying that men are conscious and women aren't. We have different definitions of "consciousness".

I would say that science was created by intent coupled with awareness.

Yes, but that "intent" - which involves purpose and memory, etc - is what makes it special. That's what I personally call "consciousness".

Women are tormented by a thousand voices, and a man is tormented by one.

What do you mean?

I mean that women feel the demands of all who are (immediately) around them, whereas a man feels only the call of his own conscience.

But women are not aware of God, because if they were, the world would be full of female sages and geniuses.

You don't even believe in God.

By "God" I mean "the All", or everything, the Totality.

the raising of criminals is something that interests me

Speaking of criminals, the criminal has the ability to "merge" with things, and that is exactly why he is a criminal.

For example, he sees the property of others as his own. For him, the boundaries don't exist. In the case of a rapist, he considers the woman's body as his own body.

Of course, the criminal feels his right to other people's property for irrational reasons, and therefore, in my view, his actions do not have a masculine basis.

In the case of a very undeveloped man and woman, it is probably true that the man will nonetheless have a wider sphere of attention, because men care more about the outer world, the physical world.

The "outer world" is not just the physical world. Men have created the abstract worlds of philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and religion. In addition, most of science is abstract. Even politics and justice are the abstract creations of men.

Perhaps that alone is why women's thoughts are less focused. The physical world is more persistent and reliable than the inner world.

I would say the abstract world of thought is more persistent than the chemical world of the emotions.

[Leyla Shen]

Men have created the abstract worlds of philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and religion. In addition, most of science is abstract. Even politics and justice are the abstract creations of men.

Dream on, Kevin. “Men” did no such thing. Such ideas may have been articulated through a few males, but “men” are no more or less responsible for the creation of this outer world than women are.

[tooyi]

As truth is not realized,
love is.

To love truth first,
and woman second,
can it ever be enough?

Or should there be but love,
and never truth again?