Writings of Foxylaythee

[Kevin Solway]

I've added some of the writings of "Foxylaythee" to the archives.

I think it's an excellent read.

[David Quinn]

I've compiled it into a more readable form on my site, and restored most of the names.

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity05.htm

-

[avidaloca]

Also, it is easy for a girl to deny the "notice-seeking" if she chooses to, even if she really was seeking the attention, whereas a written invitation to coffee cannot be denied.

I'd say if the woman has already rejected you in some other way, and so you should have known it, the written invitation will be ignored by her. If it's a completely fresh initiation of contact with someone you have had no negative contact with before, it is hard to completely ignore it.

Do you ask these women to phone you? How do they reply to the written invitation? Or do you follow it up with a call? Also how do you get their first names? Obviously there is some kind of exchange leading up to this more than just a glance in the street if you know their name and where they work.

In the case of men and women, the man is the zookeeper, and he puts himself in the cage with the female he desires. The woman doesn't exercise this same choice.

Six weeks ago I finished a seven week stint working in a cage with three women aged 22-26. One of the girls (22) was very strange to me, because she processed thought and idea in precisely the same way as me, 100% all the time. I found it easier to understand this girl more than anyone, because she was so like me in that way. Consequently, I didn't have much to say to her (it's boring talking to yourself) other than a couple of requests for a drink after I left the organisation (on bad terms with management and one co-worker I might add).

Regardless of being in the cage with her for that time 5 days a week 8 hours a day, I got rejected. No reply, just a message from the boss to not email her at work anymore. Since then I've thought about her every day but am at a loss where to go. I really only want to hang out with her as friends because we get on great - of course I am a bit shy around her because of that intimacy of character. I basically have nothing to say at any time to her because there's way too many connections already so there's nothing to add.

In any case, the theory of being able to naturally avail oneself of a woman at work through the naturalness of it didn't work for me.

[Kevin Solway]

How do they reply to the written invitation?

Anyhow they want - or not at all. The ball is entirely in their court, and if they're interested they'll let you know.

I'm not actually interested in the mechanics of how to pick up women, only in examining the psychology and implications of the process.

In any case, the theory of being able to naturally avail oneself of a woman at work through the naturalness of it didn't work for me.

Still, you have more chance than if you weren't in the same cage.

[Matt Gregory]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if you want to be the one to choose the girl, you can't sit there and think about it for weeks, you have to go for it right away or she will lose interest in you.

[avidaloca]

Anyhow they want - or not at all. The ball is entirely in their court, and if they're interested they'll let you know.

I'm not that interested in the mechanics either - I just found it interesting that you've already established a significant amount of knowledge before you send this written and name-addressed letter to their work. You already have that information, which suggests enough connection there to ask in person rather than through the letter. You might find the boldness of that works sometimes. It may appear wimpy to send a letter from their viewpoint cause I think women like "strong" men.

If I had a girl's name and workplace, I'd go the extra step to get a date if I was so inclined.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if you want to be the one to choose the girl, you can't sit there and think about it for weeks, you have to go for it right away or she will lose interest in you.

It's hard to imagine walking into someone's work and kicking off a relationship with them while you work with them everyday though. It's just too much.

[Matt Gregory]

I think what you have to do is seduce all the women in the place as a collective, but in such a way that you make it clear which one you are really interested in. You want everyone on your side, but you want all the women to decide that the one you're interested in is the one that should go out with you, so they will talk her into it for you. This way, you won't have to make any overly aggressive moves, the woman will make up some pretense for you to act.

[Matt Gregory]

I think it's clear from this that trying to contact that girl at your old job is futile. A woman adopts the people around her as her parents in a sense so that instead of deciding who to date on her own she can be handed off to the man by the people around her. If you've displeased all the people at her work, then they are probably going to sit around and gossip negatively about you and convince her that you are a bad person.

[avidaloca]

I think it's clear from this that trying to contact that girl at your old job is futile. A woman adopts the people around her as her parents in a sense so that instead of deciding who to date on her own she can be handed off to the man by the people around her. If you've displeased all the people at her work, then they are probably going to sit around and gossip negatively about you and convince her that you are a bad person.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I haven't contacted her since a few days after I finished there and might not ever again. I think half the problem is her young age (11 years younger than me), making her more impressionable and guided by others.

It's interesting you mentioned the other women there - one of them was vile. Short, overweight and a weird personality - used to cop flack from the other girls and a client occasionally also. Anyway, I didn't think that much of her and I know she picked that up psychically as women do. That spelled the death knell for a good repall with her "family", which meant the end of me.

In any case I seriously only wanted to hang out with this person because her personality is so similar to mine it's just crazy hanging out with her - like having a muppet or doll that you make talk without moving your lips. Or a twin or doppelganger. The funniest thing was having brief arguments over work matters a couple of times - the incredible intensity and instant flaring of it was due to the parallel mindsets - the interaction is stripped raw from the onset without any ceremony.

I have reevaluated my ideas on the way human minds function now - I think its genetic. The environment has a minimal effect. Twins raised in different families who have never met always have the same interests and mindset. Genes are heavily underplayed in estimating intelligence and points of view.

[Matt Gregory]

I heard about a recent study that concluded that overweight people are more prone to dementia than normal people. I wonder how many people on this forum would agree that there's some type of connection between the two.

[avidaloca]

I think the environment does play a huge role in selecting genes though. The hardest places to survive select only the strongest people; weaker people don't survive to propagate their genes. The most civilised people throughout history, who built empires, came from areas that were challenging to survive in such as Italy (Roman Empire - a small isolated land area), Scandinavia (Vikings - cold with little arable land) and later England (poorest and most overcrowded country in Europe until the 17th century). The easier a place is to survive in, the less reason for the people to change and grow, and vice versa.

It's interesting that Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin, three dictators stronger minded than their countrymen, respectively came from Corsica, Austria and Georgia, not France, Germany and Russia - tougher countries with harder cultures. They occupy strategic junctures between huge nations and have remained seperate from the huge empires overshadowing them. More strong-minded people emerged there from necessity than in the larger nations.

[Shardrol]

It's interesting you mentioned the other women there - one of them was vile. Short, overweight and a weird personality. . .

It's interesting that so many people (men & women both) judge a woman first by her appearance, no matter what the context. Women are required to be pleasing to the eye - an ugly woman is an offense to all. I think people are mostly entirely unconscious of the fact that they think this way.

[avidaloca]

It's interesting that so many people (men & women both) judge a woman first by her appearance, no matter what the context.

Carlyle said "All that a man does is physiognomic of him". Which means that the physical characteristics of a person are completely interwoven with their psychological characteristics. Short, ugly people, short ugly natures.

[Shardrol]

I would disagree with Carlyle here (& I'm probably taller than him as well). Ugliness is not an objective quality - it's an aesthetic opinion. Certainly a person's character will show in their face to some degree, but height seems independent of personality. I don't know what you mean by a 'short' nature. Can you elaborate?

[Kevin Solway]

It's interesting that so many people (men & women both) judge a woman first by her appearance, no matter what the context. Women are required to be pleasing to the eye - an ugly woman is an offense to all.

I think this is a genetic thing. Women are judged on their physical appearance, which translates, biologically, to "physicially healthy and able to bear and rear a number of children". Whereas men are judged on how good a provider they are, or have potential to be, which translates, biologically, to "able to protect and provide for a large family."

Both elements are needed to produce a large family, which best serves the continuation of the genetic line.

Short, ugly people, short ugly natures.

I think we have to be very careful what attributes we associate with people being physically short. Our ancestors of a hundred years ago were one or two feet shorter than we are today in the West, but I doubt their personalities were much different.

Sometimes short people feel inferiior in some ways - especially in the case of short men - and this tends to exaggerate some aspects of thier personality - but not always.

[Kevin Solway]

Shardrol,

Are you still teaching Buddhism? Have you made any major realizations lately?

[Shardrol]

It's interesting that so many people (men & women both) judge a woman first by her appearance, no matter what the context. Women are required to be pleasing to the eye - an ugly woman is an offense to all.

I think this is a genetic thing. Women are judged on their physical appearance, which translates, biologically, to "physicially healthy and able to bear and rear a number of children". Whereas men are judged on how good a provider they are, or have potential to be, which translates, biologically, to "able to protect and provide for a large family."

Both elements are needed to produce a large family, which best serves the continuation of the genetic line.

I agree it is genetic, as you say. But a conscious rational being need not be dominated by such things. Reproduction is surely the primary biological imperative, & yet many here on this forum have made a deliberate choice not to engage in it.

[Shardrol]

Shardrol,

Are you still teaching Buddhism? Have you made any major realizations lately?

This sounds a bit like 'are you still beating your wife?' but yes I admit it, I am still teaching Buddhism.

I'm not sure what you'd call a major realization, but probably not.

[avidaloca]

Personally I'm very hard-pressed to come up with a short person who didn't have a more or less lower nature. It seems loftiness means more than mental stature.

On the flipside they are more down-to-earth and less egotistical in that way (i.e. not aloof or arrogant as much in a holier-than-thou way).

[David Quinn]

Are you saying that the taller you are, the more noble your character will be? Are basketballers more lofty-minded than jockeys?

Since the start of the twentieth century, humans have grown at least a foot taller, due to better nutrition and health. Does this mean that society itself has become wiser and more lofty-minded since the days of Nietzsche and Weininger?

If Weininger moved to a land of giant people (thereby becoming a short person) would his character suddenly become more base?

-

[avidaloca]

I believe the spiritual/psychological/physical are strongly linked. They are not seperate from each other.

Man began as a small ape and developed greater and greater intelligence as his stature rose through homo erectus, cro-magnon man, neanderthal and finally homo sapiens.

For example, Germans are considered the most gifted race in Europe and they are much taller on average than their neighbouring races.

Of course there are thresholds, so someone could be too tall and lanky just as there are those who are too short and stubby.

Does this mean that society itself has become wiser and more lofty-minded since the days of Nietzsche and Weininger?

These things are not absolute - because the height increases all round among the general population, it doesn't negate the fact that some people are still of a higher stature than others.

[Kevin Solway]

I believe the spiritual/psychological/physical are strongly linked. They are not seperate from each other.

For example, Germans are considered the most gifted race in Europe and they are much taller on average than their neighbouring races.

One race might be taller than another purely because they have a better diet. Or it might be a genetic adaption to climate. For example the Masai are tall and thin because it helps them to keep cool, whereas eskimos are short and squat in order to retain heat.

You'll have to come up with some more convincing data.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I believe the spiritual/psychological/physical are strongly linked. They are not seperate from each other.

But the links probably are so complex, it seems hardly possible to say something wise about it. Geographics, climate and economics seem to be the biggest players though.

Man began as a small ape and developed greater and greater intelligence as his stature rose through homo erectus, cro-magnon man, neanderthal and finally homo sapiens.

This is not how the evolution theory currently sees it. For example: Cro-Magnon had bigger brains, same body length as current humans (giants in their times) and came later than the early subtypes of Homo Sapiens! Didn't make it though. Maybe they stood out too much...

For example, Germans are considered the most gifted race in Europe and they are much taller on average than their neighbouring races.

Actually, according to any statistic around they seem significantly shorter on average than two of their neighbours: the Danes and the Dutch. But maybe for ease we can add these nations to the 'Greater Germany' ;). It would explain Spinoza and Kierkegaard too...But the times of being most gifted in philosophical sense seems way past to me.

Americans fall behind in length statistics, mostly blamed on poor economics, benefiting only a smaller percentage of the population. Which of course is considered in a more socialist Europe to be not a very smart thing....

[David Quinn]

avidolca,

I believe the spiritual/psychological/physical are strongly linked. They are not seperate from each other.

Socrates was fat and ugly, with a great bulbous nose. Kierkegaard was frail and sickly, a mere twig of a man. Hakuin was a gruesome sight if his self-portraits can be believed. Neither Nietzsche nor Weininger could be held up as fine specimens of physical beauty and health. Yet these are some of the wisest men who have lived.

Man began as a small ape and developed greater and greater intelligence as his stature rose through homo erectus, cro-magnon man, neanderthal and finally homo sapiens.

Many scientists believe that if we want to seriously explore deep space and visit other solar systems, we will have to create genetically-modified humans who are only a foot tall, which is apparently the optimus size in terms of energy requirements and zero-gravity conditions. Will this mean that their minds will be far less evolved and their characters far more base than the average Jew, whom Weininger considered the lowest type of human?

For example, Germans are considered the most gifted race in Europe and they are much taller on average than their neighbouring races.

I reckon we should start shovelling all the short people into the ovens now. What do you reckon?

-

[avidaloca]

I agree with Diebert in that the connections between mind and body are there, but so subtle and complex as to make commentary on them very difficult. You will find Weininger makes frequent reference to them in terms of racial and gender characteristics, but it takes skill to do so. My attempt was a bit clumsy but in general I hold to those principles.