What is the consciousness of a woman really like?

[Kelly Jones]

I would prefer that this hypothetical man didn't drool, stammer and speak in a high pitched voice.

I'd like to know very specifically why Carmel has this preference. Has she consciously determined that this is preferable for some reasons?

For instance, she also prefers that a man smell faintly of pine, which sounds rather romantic to me. It doesn't sound like a preference that has been chosen for good reason. What if the man works in an industrial port that ships out pine chips to Japan for paper mills, and the pinechip mountain is harbouring a human-lethal fungi that will eventually kill him - and her? (Real scenario from where I live). What if he's a commercial forester in old-growth native forests? What if he is a Huon-carver (Huon pine is very slow-growing)? What if.....

I mean, eventually romance, if it is to be sustained, has to cut away from reality and documentation, into dreaminess.

Once the romance has captured the attention of the target, then it is abandoned for a spate of low-brow double-entendres, sexual allusions, and subtle invitations. And, once the target is aroused, matters become serious. The wife steps in, with a scientific-ethical facade, dry instructions, appeals to rationality, etc. etc. etc.

[Jason]

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.

You realize you've just crushed David?

oh, and if they smell woodsy, like cedar and fresh pine...well, that's always nice. :)

I smell of wood, but my wood smells sort of fruity, kinda like dried apricots. It's absolutely intoxicating! Seriously.

[Anders Schlander]

I would prefer that this hypothetical man didn't drool, stammer and speak in a high pitched voice.

I'd like to know very specifically why Carmel has this preference. Has she consciously determined that this is preferable for some reasons?

For instance, she also prefers that a man smell faintly of pine, which sounds rather romantic to me. It doesn't sound like a preference that has been chosen for good reason. What if the man works in an industrial port that ships out pine chips to Japan for paper mills, and the pinechip mountain is harbouring a human-lethal fungi that will eventually kill him - and her? (Real scenario from where I live). What if he's a commercial forester in old-growth native forests? What if he is a Huon-carver (Huon pine is very slow-growing)? What if.....

I mean, eventually romance, if it is to be sustained, has to cut away from reality and documentation, into dreaminess.

Once the romance has captured the attention of the target, then it is abandoned for a spate of low-brow double-entendres, sexual allusions, and subtle invitations. And, once the target is aroused, matters become serious. The wife steps in, with a scientific-ethical facade, dry instructions, appeals to rationality, etc. etc. etc.

Hm, im not sure the appearance of a lover is ever 'practical', it is as an appearance fleeting as anything can be, the attractiveness of perhaps a gorgeous woman arises without knowing anything about her, whether she is a murderer, or is wearing a mask and is really a man inside, etc etc. So, the reason one falls in love is linked to the attachment in the appearance, which is ever-fragile, if one lives ones life hoping appearances never change or is the ever-truth, one is definitely investing in a fantasy- so not only do u have to invest in a fantasy to sustain a romance, it's what makes it possible. Under these conditions though, a romance is 'any' appearance, which i suppose is fine, because who said one can't have a romance with ones pimped out car for example...

But still, im still doing the same thing, though im mildy conscious about it (Romance and fantasy in appearances). It's quite foolish and as i said, not practical, because you may find you've given an appearance too much consideration, and relied upon something has that then dissapeared......( oh the horror )

edit: As for the rest of your post btw kelly, that's a nice example of somebody pushing his luck with a woman :)

[David Quinn]

I've always loved this bit in The Banquet by Kierkegaard:

Gathering together one's impressions of a woman's existence in order to point out its essential features, one is struck by the fact that every woman's life gives one an entirely fantastic impression. In a far more decisive sense than man she may be said to have turning points in her career; for her turning points turn everything upside down. In one of Tieck's Romantic dramas there occurs a person who, having once been king of Mesopotamia, now is a green-grocer in Copenhagen. Exactly as fantastic is every feminine existence. If the girl's name is Juliana, her life is as follows: erstwhile empress in the wide domains of love, and titulary queen of all the exaggerations of tomfoolery; now, Mrs. Peterson, corner Bath Street.

Kierkegaard's sense of humour is a joy to behold.

-

[jupiviv]

Carmel, along with a lot of other people here, seems to be a specialist in the Chewbacca defense.

[Carmel]

[quote="Jason"][quote="Carmel"]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

You realize you've just crushed David?

Carmel:
lol! not a chance. He's repulsed by women, remember?

Jason:
I smell of wood, but my wood smells sort of fruity, kinda like dried apricots. It's absolutely intoxicating! Seriously.

Carmel:
lol! Actually, the natural smell of man really is more intoxicating than the smell of pine...plus it's more environmentally friendly, which should be a relief to Kelly.

And Kelly,
To answer your question,
Suffice it to say, the questions which David asked me were based on delusion(s), so it's only natural that my answers would be delusional in nature. Delusion begets delusion.

[Carmel]

David:
Kierkegaard's sense of humour is a joy to behold.

Carmel:
hilarious! I read recently that he had a feminine aura. What do you think about that?

(...Call it 'woman's intuition', but something tells me I'm not done with you yet, precious;)

[David Quinn]

You will have mercy, won't you ....?

-

[Blair]

I'm a very good-looking guy and have very large beautiful intoxicating brown eyes.

I am prince. I am part of the universe, too.

[jupiviv]

Some of my lovely pictures:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7223/tigerjupta.jpg

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/808/juptadiaper.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6850/domjuptai.jpg

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1837/fatjupta.jpg

[Blair]

Yeah? We'll I'm genuinely slim and handsome. and a genius to boot.

Sucks to be you doesn't it

[Kelly Jones]

To answer your question,
Suffice it to say, the questions which David asked me were based on delusion(s), so it's only natural that my answers would be delusional in nature. Delusion begets delusion.

Well, now, that sounds like more romantic claptrap. There's no good reason to respond deludedly to delusional questions, is there? That's just blaming a mistake on someone else.

So, I'll pursue this with you. I like bringing out the substance of a matter when I perceive others clouding it in niceties. The substance of the matter is this: David's questions weren't delusional. Rather, he backed out of the discussion because he has tact, and foresight. But I am cruel and tactless, as everyone tells me, and even more than that, I find psychological processes fascinating.

I think David foresaw something like this:

Q: Would you care to explain your reasons for preferring that man not stammer, drool, and have a high-pitched voice ? Or why you prefer a faintly woodsy smell about him, or his natural odour (and would that include a well-seasoned aroma of eau de urine/cac)?

A: I want a decisive, strong charactered man, who is self-contained, respectable, has no physical disabilities, and a deep, mellifluous voice to magick me into romantic fantasies, and a gentle perfume to send me tripping into my own private imaginings of a far-away land.... [and here is the interesting part, I'm sure.]

Q: Why do you prefer all those qualities instead of their opposite?

A: I'm naturally disposed to prefer them.

Q: Yes, by what reasons do you have for preferring them?

A: I don't go by reasons, but my feelings and intuitions. Women's intuition, you see.

[How far does this conversation go, or how many times is it repeated ?]

Mrs Baker of Canterbury Street

.

[Blair]

I love this Kelly girl too ^^ btw. I have always loved her, even though she ignores me.

Because I am this handsome smart guy who posts on this site because I was caused to know the truth anyway.

Life is incredibly brutal and unfair,
because the universe is uncaring, it's just here
Through quantum physics, I can percieve a "square"
Alone I am, sometimes I just crAvE dearest Kelly was there,
too.

-prince, just a man.

[jupiviv]

Hey, I'm a pirate!

Have sex with me!

[Carmel]

Kelly,
There's no good reason to respond deludedly to delusional questions, is there?

Carmel:
This is true. It also explains why I usually don't respond to your posts.

Kelly:
But I am cruel and tactless, as everyone tells me, and even more than that, I find psychological processes fascinating.

Carmel:
cruel and tactless? I was thinking more along the lines of hostile and tedious...yet another reason as to why I don't respond to your posts.

Kelly:
I think David foresaw something like this.

Carmel:
Are you his spokesperson now?

Kelly:
Mrs Baker of Canterbury Street

Carmel:
...and you're like Elmer Fudd.. chasing after WOMAN...Kelly, clad in combat boots, stomps into GF, all guns ablazin', shouting out defiantly: I'ma gonna get you, you wascally wabbit! ...good luck with that, Kelly. :)

[Carmel]

David: You will have mercy, won't you ....?

Carmel:
After, upon deep reflection of that question, I have determined my answer to be: ....

[Robert]

Hey, I'm a pirate!

Have sex with me!

Nice work there jup. But no, I won't have sex with you.

[Anders Schlander]

there's a thousand rules in a woman's home, driving her nuts is easy by asking the reasons for it.


A faint connection to reality seems to means impractical rules and rituals.
I wonder why people love rules and rituals so much. It helps deal with ones life, by ordering daily routines, and keeping things simple. Butwhat is pleasurable about it? Those who do it can't tell you why they have seemingly unnecesary rules, and i can't really tell...

remember belching? feet on the table, exact places to put everything, standing upright, smiling, etc.

normal social conventions almost turns into a bit of a joke, honestly, and it is done primarily to keep the ego alive. Rules and rituals are funny that way, they seem to keep the illusion of the ego alive as it tries to build a secure fortress, but it's just as comical as women trying to make themselves 10 years younger etc....

[Atum]

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

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

-

Just e-mailed him. I don't think he'd mind if I paraphrased it.

1. He is altering his book "genius philosophy."

2. A significant change in his philosophy is that he believes in chastity instead of "rape."

3. He became a Buddhist, he is an arhat.

4. He is writing a book about it.

5. The tone of his e-mail was pretty happy.

[Kelly Jones]

Carmel,

You might believe I'm boring and hostile, but I'm actually really interested in your thoughts. I see reason in you, and that is the one I wish to befriend. But I can only get to that part of you, by pointing out the unreason that you cling to. I am just trying to help you to abandon it. I hope you don't find it interesting or alluring to mock this appeal to the nobler part of oneself. I'm just trying to get through past all the emotional barricades: the big contraption of feminine psychology that is presently controlling a lot of your behaviour. Most women, I have no luck with, because they're too much in thrall to all the impulses, they find it simply impossible to resist. Perhaps I'll have some luck with you. Not sure yet, but you are more stable and centred than most other females that come flouncing around here. So there's hope for you.

That's the only reason I challenged you on your "preferences". And, it is the only reason that I try to articulate what Woman is, and why I "boringly" explain how She's such an obstruction to philosophical progress. You see, Woman isn't everything. She's an unwanted tenant, noisy, irrational, and unhelpful. She can be kicked out. But only if one wishes to be fair-minded, reasonable, patient, strong-willed, and purposeful. What a thrill it is, to be liberated, after being held back by her cunning and sabotage for so long. One can get so much further......

The alternative is falling prey to her charms of emotionalism and unreasonableness, seeing enemies where there are none, refusing to reason openly, hating the very thought of exploring ideas, hating with a passion the demands of reason on one's life, hating the possibility of failure and disappointment, and pussy-footing around in mediocrity out of fear of discouragement, suffering and humiliation. If one lets Woman take hold in that way, then the chance for deeper understanding and philosophical-spiritual growth is lost forever. The next time the chance comes, one will have to battle even harder to resist Her. And soon enough, one's weakness for these psychological pitfalls will be overwhelming. The resulting waste of a good mind is a terrible thing to behold.

So, would you like to come once again to the duel, with a more open-minded, reason-loving stance?

.

[David Quinn]

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

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

-

Just e-mailed him. I don't think he'd mind if I paraphrased it.

1. He is altering his book "genius philosophy."

2. A significant change in his philosophy is that he believes in chastity instead of "rape."

3. He became a Buddhist, he is an arhat.

4. He is writing a book about it.

5. The tone of his e-mail was pretty happy.

Oh well, there you go. Thanks for filling us in. I'm not sure how to take his becoming a Buddhist, as that could mean almost anything, but it is good that he has chosen "chastity". I think he needed to, given the excessive fawning over a girl he was involved with towards the end of his stay here. The way it was heading he was either going to end up in complete chastity or a long-term marriage, one of the two.

-

[jupiviv]

The direction this thread has taken(like some of the other threads here) is more proof to the fact that most people in here can only formulate ad hoc, ad hominem and straw man arguments. That, or they cover the actual content of their posts(nothing) with a host of ideas they've picked up from books. I expected this forum(as a whole) to be a bit more sane than the rest of the "philosophy" discussion forums on the web. I'm sorry to say I'm disappointed.

[Kelly Jones]

I'm glad that it exists at all, though, Jupta. All the back-pedalling, evasion and denial, sniping and mockery and belittling, that the lacklustre mob's posts amount to, are fear reactions to genuine philosophy. That means, at least there is something substantial on offer here.

Fear reactions are understandable, when a beginner has caught a whiff of something challenging, but they haven't yet thought the matter through. Their minds are succumbing to lack of thought, that's all. They aren't getting themselves into gear in order to understand the unknown idea. Fear makes a veritable hurricane out of small stuff. It's something one has to learn to stride over.

Thinking demands courage, otherwise it's not thinking.

[Nick]

A significant change in his philosophy is that he believes in chastity instead of "rape."

What is this supposed to mean? That he once thought rape was the most ethical form of sex but now believes consensual sex is?

[David Quinn]

Doesn't "chastity" mean celibacy or virginity?

-