What is the consciousness of a woman really like?

[jupiviv]

Who said anything about merging with your environment?

That is what the feminine side/unconsciousness is.

[Atum]

Unconsciousness is still in man, no matter how conscious he is. "Animals and plants are the unconscious in man."

[jupiviv]

Unconsciousness is still in man, no matter how conscious he is. "Animals and plants are the unconscious in man."

Yes, there has probably never been a man who was fully conscious, but that is the ideal. And there have been men who have reached close enough to it to understand that it is possible in reality. In fact, if you are able to be fully conscious for even a second, then that consciousness becomes true for all time.

[Jason]

Yes, there has probably never been a man who was fully conscious, but that is the ideal. And there have been men who have reached close enough to it to understand that it is possible in reality. In fact, if you are able to be fully conscious for even a second, then that consciousness becomes true for all time.

You sound like a carbon copy of David Quinn.

[jupiviv]

You sound like a carbon copy of David Quinn.

But funnily enough I disagree with him on quite a few areas, and only read half of his woman essay. Wise people say a lot of things which are similar because they deal with absolute truths.

[Blair]

Women are revolting creatures.

5 days every month they exude this vile funk stink that makes me want to throw-up.

[Dan Rowden]

Um, I kinda doubt you ever get close enough for that reaction :)

[Blair]

I can smell it in the air, from quite a distance.

My ex-wife had me covered in the stuff, horrible experience for a prince. Found myself retching, sort of privately.

[David Quinn]

You sound like a carbon copy of David Quinn.

But funnily enough I disagree with him on quite a few areas, and only read half of his woman essay. Wise people say a lot of things which are similar because they deal with absolute truths.

Good answer.

It would be great to live in a world in which absolute truth was so perfectly understood by the human race that pointing it out, for whatever reason, would be too mundane to excite any comment, let alone accusations of copying.

Nowadays, a comment that "we will all eventually die" excites no accusations of copying because it is accepted by everyone everywhere as an obvious truth. Ideally, all the great truths of life would be like this.

-

[David Quinn]

David: Would he have to have a job?

Carmel: No, it doesn't matter whether or not he has a job. I don't place value on job "status" and the material world doesn't hold much interest for me...except for nature. I find respite in nature.

Okay. What about if he was a midget? I won't say dwarf, as I don't want to make it too easy for you, but let's say that he was at least a foot shorter than you, spoke in a high-pitched voice and had a tendency to stammer and drool. Do you think you would still find him sexually attractive, assuming that he also possessed the critical qualities you listed - intelligence, compassion, sense of humour, etc?

-

[Atum]

There seems to be some kind of correlation between good looks and genius. A lot of past geniuses (and I use the word in a looser sense to include artists) were very good looking men. They usually had big beautiful eyes.

Just an observation. Not unlike any other forum on the Internet, not many people here put themselves on the line. Genius has a naive tone.

This guy is brilliant: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity01.htm

[Atum]

If any man can get over woman (i.e. sex), he should become a genius naturally.

Children are close to genius on account of the fact that they are not interested in woman or sex.

Therefore I think the woman-question is very important. She needs to be exposed as the genius killer.

Every man should wish to become a genius. Only the genius has real happiness.

[David Quinn]

This guy is brilliant: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity01.htm

I wonder what's become of him....

-

[Carmel]

David:

Okay. What about if he was a midget? I won't say dwarf, as I don't want to make it too easy for you, but let's say that he was at least a foot shorter than you, spoke in a high-pitched voice and had a tendency to stammer and drool. Do you think you would still find him sexually attractive, assuming that he also possessed the critical qualities you listed - intelligence, compassion, sense of humour, etc?

Carmel:
...and these questions from a man who won't commit to frolicking with a hypothetical cute puppy. lol! There's no way to answer any of this definitively, except to say that, given a choice, I would prefer that this hypothetical man didn't drool, stammer and speak in a high pitched voice.

[David Quinn]

Hard to say. When I smile, I smile a lot and big. This often gets commented on. I am compassionate. I am shy. I am soft-spoken. I don't have anything "macho" about me except, perhaps, my facial hair. I am, however, an independent thinker, at least relative to other people. Either "masculine" =/ "macho" or I am fatally over-estimating my manhood.

Virgil was nicknamed "Parthenius" (the Virgin), Milton was nicknamed "The Lady of Christ's, Chekhov was described as "modest and quiet like a girl." I admit these are artistic geniuses, and a philosopher is less likely feminine. However, I can't imagine Nietzsche, for example, was anything like a macho guy or the super-man.

He was sometimes laughed at for his "effeminate" ways. Kierkegaard probably had a feminine aura as well, if the drawings of him are any guide. I can hardly be described as macho myself.

It's obvious that masculinity, as a whole, has little to do with being macho. Being macho is a form of robotic lifelessness which locks men into a very crude, one-dimensional frame of mind. Useful if you are a soldier or a miner, perhaps, but hardly representative of the kind of multi-faceted brand of masculinity which is needed to become a good philosopher and a wise human being. Things like sensitivity, intuitiveness, cautiousness, open-mindedness, flexibility, etc, are just as much traits of the masculine person as single-mindedness, ruthlessness and courage are. It's all part and parcel of being a thinker intent on conquering ignorance.

-

[Jason]

You sound like a carbon copy of David Quinn.

But funnily enough I disagree with him on quite a few areas

Like what?

Wise people say a lot of things which are similar because they deal with absolute truths.

Fools say a lot of similar things too.

[jupiviv]

Fools say a lot of similar things too.

Exactly. Similarity is bound to occur in nature. Calling me a carbon copy of David Quinn based on the fact that one of the things I said was similar to something he said is not very intelligent.

[Jason]

jupiviv: Wise people say a lot of things which are similar because they deal with absolute truths.

Jason: Fools say a lot of similar things too.

jupiviv: Exactly. Similarity is bound to occur in nature.

Exactly? No, not "exactly." Saying that similarity is bound to occur in nature is quite different to your original claim that similarity shows shared wisdom and absolute truths.

Calling me a carbon copy of David Quinn based on the fact that one of the things I said was similar to something he said is not very intelligent.

I didn't say you were a carbon copy of David Quinn, I said "You sound like a carbon copy of David Quinn." and my comment was preceded by and in relation to a particular quote of yours.

Are you going to explain exactly how you "disagree with him(David) on quite a few areas", or are you going to ignore my previous inquiry into these claimed disagreements between you and David?

[Carmel]

Atum: There seems to be some kind of correlation between good looks and genius. A lot of past geniuses (and I use the word in a looser sense to include artists) were very good looking men. They usually had big beautiful eyes.

Carmel:
...sounds dreamy...

Atum:
Just an observation. Not unlike any other forum on the Internet, not many people here put themselves on the line. Genius has a naive tone.

Carmel:
You may as well put yourself on the line. There's no use in trying to put on a facade. Most people will see right through it.

This guy is brilliant: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity01.htm[/quote]

Carmel:
...sounds dreamy...

[David Quinn]

David:

Okay. What about if he was a midget? I won't say dwarf, as I don't want to make it too easy for you, but let's say that he was at least a foot shorter than you, spoke in a high-pitched voice and had a tendency to stammer and drool. Do you think you would still find him sexually attractive, assuming that he also possessed the critical qualities you listed - intelligence, compassion, sense of humour, etc?

Carmel:
...and these questions from a man who won't commit to frolicking with a hypothetical cute puppy. lol! There's no way to answer any of this definitively, except to say that, given a choice, I would prefer that this hypothetical man didn't drool, stammer and speak in a high pitched voice.

I dare say you're right. My approach here is too hypothetical, not to mention a bit too obvious, to generate anything much of interest, so I'll leave it there. Sorry for troubling you.

-

[jupiviv]

Saying that similarity is bound to occur in nature is quite different to your original claim that similarity shows shared wisdom and absolute truths.

Absolute truths and wisdom occur in nature.

I didn't say you were a carbon copy of David Quinn, I said "You sound like a carbon copy of David Quinn."

So are you saying that what I said was similar to what a carbon copy of David Quinn has said? Or are you accusing me of imitating that carbon copy?

Are you going to explain exactly how you "disagree with him(David) on quite a few areas", or are you going to ignore my previous inquiry into these claimed disagreements between you and David?

Explaining exactly how I disagree with him is a totally different matter. You can make a new thread about it. I don't have a problem.

[Jason]

I didn't say you were a carbon copy of David Quinn, I said "You sound like a carbon copy of David Quinn."

So are you saying that what I said was similar to what a carbon copy of David Quinn has said? Or are you accusing me of imitating that carbon copy?

It's simple: I thought your post was very similar to something I'd imagine David Quinn would post. I suppose I was strongly hinting at the possibility of imitation. The similarity was as much in the expression and form as the content, and that, to me, was troubling - because it might suggest rather mindless wholesale imitation. On the other hand, it may simply be coincidence, mixed with my personal perceptions, mixed with a similar philosophical worldview(between you and David.) And, it's only one small post afterall - small sample size.

Explaining exactly how I disagree with him is a totally different matter. You can make a new thread about it. I don't have a problem.

You were the one who brought up the fact that you had disagreements with David - maybe in response to the expectation that you might be perceived as imitating David?

[jupiviv]

The similarity was as much in the expression and form as the content, and that, to me, was troubling - because it might suggest rather mindless wholesale imitation.

I explained why that is not the case. I guess you'll just have to either believe what I said, or keep on thinking I'm imitating him. I can't be bothered to go through the effort of explaining further. However, I would hazard a guess that there are many similarities in the writings of Kevin Solway and David Quinn. If this is true, then it's simply because of the fact, as I mentioned before, that both of them reasoned about the same things, and generally came to the same conclusions about them. Here's a quote by Otto Weininger which is related to this:

...all art and philosophy, as long as there are human beings, have dealt with the same eternal problems, the great problems of humanity and of existence. The great themes of world literature remain the same, the motif of the requiem is renewed for every musician, and the problems of philosophy are the same from the oldest myths and sayings of the Babylonians and Indians to the present day. Consider the variations on the motifs of Don Juan, Faust and Prometheus in folk- literatures, consider Hamlet's return as Skule, the figure of Siegfried (= Feramors–Achilles), or the metamorphoses of the perfect villain as Hagen, Richard III, Franz Moor, Golo, and Bishop Nikolas. The theory that time is ideal was taught before Kant, in the Upanishads, Anaximander's ethics says almost the same thing as Schopenhauer's, and we encounter the Christian theocracy again in the knighthood of the Grail in the Parsifal myth, and in Kant's conception of a corpus mysticum [mystical body]. In the final analysis, the problems of the artists and those of the philosophers are the same, too; only their treatment is different.

I would say that the above also applies to science. The goal of science has always been and always will be to see things as they really are.

[Jason]

Heh - quoting Weininger of all people(a favourite of David's, but seemingly not all that well known generally within philosophy circles) certainly isn't the best way to show that you're not an imitator. Whatever the case may be(imitator or not), my job of pointing out the possibility of mindless imitation is done for now. Maybe the similarities you share with David will allow you to understand why I consider it valuable to bring attention to this possibility.

[Kelly Jones]

Imitation done consciously is part of the way to emulation. That is, emulating a Buddha. If one can abandon lusts and desires, and be immovably enlightened, imitating what one reasons a Buddha to be, then that is emulation.

Apeing because one is still weak, can certainly become a problem. But it all depends whom one's model, what one's ultimate goal is.

And of course, the alternative to all this is rubbery, lily-livered gurrbery.