GENIUS FORUMS

bert wrote:

Then ,as a last question, Kelly:
What is Truth?That being the truth of the absolute well to speak.That is why it has a big t.

Ultimate Truth is everything. Logically it cannot exclude anything. Thus, it is quite possible to speak rigorously of it.

You speak of what is necessary for Truth,namely everything,but do not speak OF Truth.

Truth IS not everything.
Truth is not the truth of formula.

If anything exists, then it is what it is (true), ie. is a manifestation of Truth. Truth itself isn't a thing that exists separately. If it were, then nothing could be what it is. In fact, you couldn't say anything about Truth, or indeed anything else, if Truth were not everything.



Kelly

prince wrote:Kelly the sage has spoken, but not really...

kjones is just a mixed up young woman, who is starting to resemble a parrot.

Do you prefer repetitiously blinking, bright colourful lights in night-clubs? The daily monotony of bleak-eyed, hung-over groans about drinking too much? The same spirited, meaninglessly joyful Christmas celebration every year?

Perhaps you prefer well-shampooed, long-haired, white-toothed, red-lipped, skimpily-dressed teenage girls, giggling into their mobile phones, amid a party of laughing friends? Oft-parrotted whispers, like "Love ya!" "Looking good, girrrl!" "I think you're sooooo smart, isn't he smart, that's what I think, I wish I could be like youuuuuu....."



Kelly

Leyla Shen wrote:

Having decided that women were weak, immoral and manipulative they yet chose to go fight a war and leave their male children -- the entire future -- in the care of such creatures?

kjones wrote:]The fortification of the home (governance) has ensured women (at home) don't turn traitor while at war, by conscripting all the sexually available men as soldiers, and cunningly attempt to conscript the enemy women-folk to abandon their home.

What about the "conscription" of women by the allied forces from the perspective of, say, a British serviceman and his family?

They're on the same side.

The best way to "conscript" one's womenfolk into the war effort, and prevent their turning tail, is to promote masculine women taking the men's places at home. Some of the typical WWII war posters:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/posters.html
http://www.teacheroz.com/WWIIHomefront.htm
http://www.snapshotsofthepast.com/war-posters-wow.html

I think this is how the women's suffrage movement really escalated, because it was supported by men. And what caused them to behave so foolishly? Fear of solitude.

Furthermore, the anticipation (fear) of death and desire for life (in humans and animals, through sex) often go hand-in-hand

The nurse-prostitute phenomenon, "Mummy, help me!". It's how feminine politicians succeed, through creating scare campaigns and crisis scenarios. Most people are frightened into taking insurance policies.

And, I might add, the reason philosophy is avoided like the plague. Women are a well-placed detour: "don't think, act!"

In the same way, many British women attributed their wartime immorality to air raids. (p. 19)

Completely acceptable, of course. If you're under pressure, give in.

If the world was a home vegetable garden, cultivating wisdom is like getting the tenderest seedlings to survive in impoverished soil, in mid-summer, in a drought, never hoping for a rainstorm.

And yet, what is the conquering of the world compared to having conquered oneself?



Kelly

Leyla Shen wrote:Are protests not an expression against those with whom you disagree -- or should people start attacking their own governments as a standard form of masculinity?

It depends if by protesting, one is actually agreeing with the oppressor. Many die-hard activists are protesters because they don't have the courage to live by alternative solutions. For instance, Moz is an example of a career activist [http://www.moz.net.nz/], a little unusual because he understands the necessity of logic in rhetorical argument, but that's as far as he'll take it [http://www.moz.net.nz/writing/rhetoric101.html].

From my experience, the most effective protesters are reformists, working within the system they're trying to improve. This means they are almost indistinguishable from the rest of the tame geese, and unfortunately, often become tame geese. I see the most effective means of spiritual activism as discussing the nature of Reality with intelligent young people, who are desperately, urgently, passionate about ideals, and have a sense of destiny.

we might as well admire Saddam Hussein and John Howard for the same reason/s. Hell, why not even Joan Kirner, while we're at it?

Just a vague intuition about in what direction wisdom lies, at a crucial point, could be all the difference...


Kelly

Kelly,

Thanks for the interesting reply. I plan to get to the rest and back to Rhett and the Natural person, too.

My question, directed to Sue and Marsha, is, regardless of what initially motivated you to take up philosophy, why is motherhood worthwhile to you now?

Well, don't get me started.

First, I have to say I love both of my kids very much. Hi, Buster. He told me tonight that he joined the forum a couple of days ago. I don't think he is ready for it but what do I know? I'm just his mother.

Both of my children know that I do not encourage them to have children. I don't encourage anyone to have children. In fact, I preach that all the time -- mostly, in vain.

Often -- not always -- females who have not experienced childbirth feel that they are missing out on something special. Females also tend to think that they will live some sort of white picket fence life after they have kids -- that they can stay at home with the kids while the father works and the father will come home and there will be a nice supper and everyone will sit around and watch Andy of Mayberry or something.

Here is the so-called mystery of pregnancy. You get knocked up. You get quite fat and miserable. Then, you give birth.

After that, you are legally bound to the child. If you do not do certain things, there is always the threat that something legal will be done to you. That is always hanging over your head. So, you have to spend hours doing homework and projects -- like three foot tall replicas of the White House -- so that no one can say that you are negligent. You have to agree to give your child Ritalin so that he can simply survive. You fight that for a while but, then, the kid's life is made so miserable that you finally come to the logical conclusion that drugging the kid is better than to have them subjected to abuse in the classroom.

Well, there is just a lot of misery. Now, when I see little five year old kids getting on the school bus, I nearly cry. Of course, kids need education but the public school system is very brutal -- especially on the grade school level. Had both of my kids been treated like high school students from kindergarten, things would have been better. If I could have entered them at ninth grade level when they were five.

Not because they are so brilliant. Because high school has a somewhat more free atmosphere compared to elementary and middle school.

There are many miseries and hardships to raising children -- especially when you have to do it alone. I tell anyone -- whether they listen or not -- not to do it.

I try to get my kids to remember the times I took two minute showers to come out and find that they had gotten the butcher knives and were chasing each other around the yard -- naked. The meter man knocking on the door. "You might want to know that your kids are chasing each other with big knives."

I got rid of all knives from the house after that. Still don't have anything sharper than a spoon.

The times that my daughter stole my car when she was twelve and drove over hazardous mountain roads with the two dogs in the back seat. I was asleep. She drove all night. Went to a town thirty miles away.

What do I get out of it now? Nothing. I never got anything out of it.

I do have two human beings who are slowly becoming friends. They were cute little kids but I like them better now that we can have discussions. I prefer it now that they do not chase each other naked around the yard with knives. I like it that the one does not steal my car. I like that they can feed themselves and do not wear diapers.

We have some good memories. Our best memories are of when ten thousand -- really, ten or so -- kids spent the night here and we all slept in the same bed -- with dogs and cats and sang "Riders On the Storm" to go to sleep. It was so precious to hear these little kid-soprano voices singing, "There's a killer on the road...Girl, you gotta love your man." All in strong unison. A little choir.

That stuck with them -- not just my kids but the others, too.

It is kind of interesting to see the legacy passed on. They all love The Doors. Morrison can lead to Nietzsche and so on.

What do I get out of motherhood now?

Nothing.

But I do like the two human beings they are becoming. Very slow process.

My daughter has always been extremely independent. I encourage that. Buster is a stringbean boy -- nearly six feet and one hundred twenty eight pounds. Becoming a good guitarist. He hates school. He is interested in mechanics and does well in that class. My daughter is somewhat interested in nursing because she could travel.

I don't get anything out of being their mother but I like them. Good kids. Despite everything, they are good kids. I like talking to them and listening to them. I learn much from each of them. At fifteen and seventeen, they are at interesting stages of development.

Much more interesting than the diaper stage of life.

"Buster, from this day on, you will not wear diapers. You will poop in the toilet."

I don't miss those days at all.

Faizi

kjones wrote:Perhaps you prefer well-shampooed, long-haired, white-toothed, red-lipped, skimpily-dressed teenage girls, giggling into their mobile phones, amid a party of laughing friends? Oft-parrotted whispers, like "Love ya!" "Looking good, girrrl!" "I think you're sooooo smart, isn't he smart, that's what I think, I wish I could be like youuuuuu....."

Perhaps you could explain what you find so objectionable about that behaviour? I know what you are saying, but I'd like to see how you break it down.

The first application WILL be denied. They are trying to discourage malingerers and "weed out those who don't really need it."

Because I work in Family Practice, I am very aware of this. Some people have to get a lawyer. The one person whom I have known who got it on the first try was the genius system manipulator I mentioned previously. He got it on the first try. He simply asked the judge if he thought anyone would hire him. The man was thirty nine at the time. More than three hundred pounds. Six foot three. Missing teeth. Garrulous. Rude. Uneducated. Profane.

Winning formula.

Another thing -- God, I hate going to court. I hate putting myself before a judge. The whole drama of the law unnerves me. The robes. The lawyers. I just have a problem dealing with the one act play. There is no truth in the law and that disturbs me.

The only correct answer is NO, never. If one indicates that they might be able to work at any time, the determinations agency figures that the applicant can work right now.

I have filled out these forms for patients many times. I always fill in the blank with NEVER. Otherwise, there is no point in filling out the form. The dude can work. Duh.

From there, it's essentially just a matter of having some medical records that show that the applicant has sought treatment for their condition in the past and describing the ways that the condition intereferes with their ability to work. Of course, if one has a solid work history stretching back years, they might have more trouble showing that they have suddenly gone loco. I had a crappy work history and a good amount of medical references, which probably helped.

I don't have any medical records. I work for doctors. I do not go to doctors. I have a good work record. I do not even have a record of when I had mono a few years back. I ordered my own blood tests. When I had something close to pneumonia several years ago, I gave myself a shot of Rocephin and it hurt like Hell. I have been my own doctor for years and years. I did go to a psychiatrist for depression several years ago because I wanted an objective opinion. I could not decide whether Effexor or Zoloft would be the better drug for me.

I had a hard time forcing myself to take Zoloft. The depression just got to the point that the horror of the drug was not worse than the horror of no drug. Still about twenty feet from the bottom. I cannot imagine the bottom.

Anyway, I do not have any medical records much. I went back to the psych dude once or twice but all he was doing was writing the drug. I had no need for that service. I can have all the Zoloft I want. I got a closet full of it.

But you are right. You have to have medical records so you can present them in court or to lawyers. I have a problem with that much exposure. I like my privacy.

If one doesn't attach ego gratification to work, it isn't really a serious impediment to thought. It doesn't sound like you are falling into the "work ethic" trap that makes employment a fetish for so many people.

Several years back, I got some gratification out of it. I don't now. It is the dole to me. It is not mind numbing. I suck blood and give shots and set up this test and that test and this appointment and that appointment and answer multiple questions. Because it is my job, I strive to give excellent service. It is my job to give excellent service. That is what I tell people when they thank me for it. It's my job. Eight hours a day.

Once every three years, and it's a pretty painless process. For about 30 minutes of "work" every three years, I'm getting around $20,000. For what amounts to $40,000 an hour, I'm willing to show up for a periodic psych evaluation.

I do not make a lot more money than you do. The only thing that seems better to me is that I always have the option of quitting. I also have a lot of privacy. I have no medical records. I have no court records.

I think it is amazing that you only have to see a psychiatrist every three years. You got a good deal, I reckon. I do not believe that the system would be that kind to me.

I am not capable of working not only because of my "issues," but also because of my deep philosophical conviction that employment is a mind-numbing scam (for me, anyway). If someone asks me if I felt capable of working, I can honestly say "no" on that basis alone.

Work is mind numbing if your mind is numb; if work bothers you; if you are working for more than "the dole." But, if that is the case, then, on welfare or not, you are an asshole. You are just out for what you can get -- in an nastily capitalistic way. Like the genius system manipulator I mentioned previously. He has no philosophical conviction. He just wants to live like a millionaire. He is getting there. Good for him. In ten years, he will probably be wealthy enough that he will not need disability.

I have philosophic conviction. I am also mentally and physically capable of working. I am mentally and physically capable of both work and thinking.

Do you engage in pure thought twenty four seven because your dole does not require eight hours of work each day? I rather doubt it. I do not mean that in a negative way but you must do some menial things.

There are some very worrisome aspects to it. For example, I don't relish the thought of being used as a medical guinea pig because I am poor and on Medicaid. One has to be willing to take certain risks to live on disability. You're right, it's not all roses and tea parties.

Medicaid patients in the US are often used as guinea pigs. My practice no longer takes Medicaid unless forced. Recently, I have forced the issue and allowed a couple of children into the practice. On Medicaid, it is very hard to get a dentist. Pain Management is also very difficult. Nearly all of our Medicaid patients are children. I cannot think of a single adult Medicaid patient in our practice. Medicaid patients are subject to just a few psychiatrists.

He must have worked a long time before filing for disability. In America, we have a strange system which punishes people who are disabled from an early age. If you have never worked much due to your disability, you can only collect SSI, which is a separate disability program for the poor. It pays a set amount of $572.00 per month to all recipients. However, if you didn't become disabled until later in life, your work earnings are counted up and you recieve a payment proportional to them. I know a guy pulling down $2000 a month on disability. I have to deal with the $572, though.

He was about thirty eight or thirty nine and had not worked for about five years before that. His wife worked cleaning houses. I have no idea how much he gets. In his case, that does not have a lot of bearing. The bulk of his income comes from his ten or twelve rental homes and his greenhouse business and his auctioneering.

My first husband got SSI when he was severely disabled with an acute onset of Systemic Lupus. He was only twenty-seven. He did force Vocational Rehab to pay for him to get his Masters in psychology. Quite a battle.

My second husband died when he was thirty eight. He was an immigrant and had not worked many years. His kids received just a little Social Security. Usually paid the water bill.

I must stop so I will post this and reply to the rest later.

My mind is numb.

Faizi


[/list][/url]

Kelly wrote:

On this topic, I'd like to refer to Sue's post about why a female takes up philosophy. My question, directed to Sue and Marsha, is, regardless of what initially motivated you to take up philosophy, why is motherhood worthwhile to you now?

Motherhood isn't "worthwhile" at all. All it shows is that, twice, I was a complete idiot.

I haven't had much to do with my daughter since she was seven (she is now twenty-three). We share no interests; which doesn't make for much of a relationship. We might see each other once a year, for a day or two - which is about as much as we both can take.

My son is very easy to live with, as he has a calm and quiet nature. He is interested in the kind of things other thirteen year old boys are into, like; computer games, Warhammer and Lego. He also has a developing interest in science, philosophy and religion. Another three or four years, and he’ll be off doing his own thing.

When I was a teenager, I never thought I’d have children; and after two of them, it still seems like a strange idea. I can’t say I learnt anything from the experience that I couldn’t have discovered through observing children from afar.

In hindsight, the years spent raising children could have been put to better use – maybe? It is more than likely though, that I would have wasted the time on something else, like; being a beach bum, or sailing round the world.

Oh well, in four more years the beach will hopefully still be there.

Sue

I am mentally and physically capable of both work and thinking.

I've found that when I work, I think more. It sounds crazy because I have no time, but I guess that's why. When you have too much time, you worry about stupid things. Not having the excess time hones it down to what you need to know, by thinking about.

Now that I only work part-time, I only find myself seriously thinking while working, and not about work (perhaps only 1-2% of the time). While working full-time, I was thinking a lot more and also very little about work. Work encourages thought, for me.

kelly:

If anything exists, then it is what it is (true), ie. is a manifestation of Truth. Truth itself isn't a thing that exists separately. If it were, then nothing could be what it is. In fact, you couldn't say anything about Truth, or indeed anything else, if Truth were not everything.

Like I said:anything is necessary for Truth.
But you can't speak OF Truth.All appears as an 'as if' truth.
You just don't FEEL it,don't you.You don't feel what I mean.Your reasoning gives you just that ,reason.The tax-master.

I was asking you about the Truth of the absolute.The absolute is unbecoming and sterile if unbelieved.What is Truth?
This question implies colour-blindness;it is asked rather as if Truth were an unrelated fact,thing,or abstract.

I wonder if you understand where I'm heading towards.My guess is :you do....NOT :)

prince wrote:

Perhaps you prefer well-shampooed, long-haired, white-toothed, red-lipped, skimpily-dressed teenage girls, giggling into their mobile phones, amid a party of laughing friends? Oft-parrotted whispers, like "Love ya!" "Looking good, girrrl!" "I think you're sooooo smart, isn't he smart, that's what I think, I wish I could be like youuuuuu....."

Perhaps you could explain what you find so objectionable about that behaviour? I know what you are saying, but I'd like to see how you break it down.

[Louie:]
Now I'm the king of the swingers
Oh, the jungle VIP
I've reached the top and had to stop
And that's what botherin' me
I wanna be a man, mancub
And stroll right into town
And be just like the other men
I'm tired of monkeyin' around!

Oh, oobee doo
I wanna be like you
I wanna walk like you
Talk like you, too
You'll see it's true
An ape like me
Can learn to be human too

[Mogli:]
Gee, cousin Louie
You're doin' real good!

[Louie:]
Now here's your part of the deal, cuz
Lay the secret on me of man's red fire

[Mogli:]
But I don't know how to make fire!

[Louie:]
Now don't try to kid me, mancub
I made a deal with you
What I desire is man's red fire
To make my dream come true
Give me the secret, mancub
Clue me what to do
Give me the power of man's red flower
So I can be like you

You!
I wanna be like you
I wanna talk like you
Walk like you, too
You'll see it's true
Someone like me
Can learn to be
Like someone like me
Can learn to be
Like someone like you
Can learn to be
Like someone like me!



Kelly

jamesh wrote: I continue my dualistic stance that all things do have one form of inherent existence, namely the underlying form that allows an objects to have properties in the first place, but that their properties are temporary. I refuse to accept the QRS's illusionary definition of "inherent" - my definition of inherent is that “inherent is what makes a something that something".

Any thing that is regarded as absolute, must be applicable to everything. Thus, existence, if inherent, must also apply to non-existence. You see the problem. The truth is quite simple. Reality (everything), has no particular form or inherent nature at all. This is what is meant by emptiness.

All the same, I would also point out that things DO have inherent value (using the dictionary definition of inherent), a value relating to an objects power to influence another object. For example, a sun has greater gravitational value than a planet. This is still a value, it is just not a human positive/negative value, it’s just a simple value relating to relativity between objects.

If we imagine a scenario in which no things can be imagined at all, then there is nothing that can have value.

To say things do not have inherent attributes is an abuse of A=A. Without inherency how could one differentiate between on object or another.

Differentiations, or things, occur because they’re caused to, not by one cause (e.g. inherency), but by all things. If you can imagine all differentiations as the totality of all things, then logically there isn’t anything existing outside the Totality, to cause. Since all things (the absolute) cannot be caused, things don’t really exist at all.



Kelly

Sue,

I have to write this, because by challenging you, I put red-hot tongs into my own heart.

You know feminine-mindedness deeply. Yet you seem to choose to let it go on. I sometimes can't tell whether you are being sarcastic, indulging in self-blame, ironic, frivolous, taking the piss, or trying to downplay. I admit much of my frustration at how strongly my karma grips my mind is compelling me to confront you on this.

You want people to understand feminine-mindedness, and I can see how passionate you are about encouraging highly critical thinking. But to what extent can you ensure your knowledge can have a lasting and deepening effect, if you live with the belief that you are certainly not strong enough to stop compromising immediately?

Just as an example, you don't seem to think living with a young boy-man, your son, perpetuates the idiocy of motherhood. Does this mean you really think he is helping you to be committed and not distracted from philosophy? How much is the role of motherhood a comfort and an escape from philosophy? Four years is a long time, for yourself and for the boy.

Perhaps you are far stronger than I, but I cannot imagine cohabiting with offspring, without there being compromise. Buster is an example of how Marsha has cleanly separated philosophy from motherhood, taking the weak language she uses with him, and about him, as evidence.


Kelly

kjones wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:kjones wrote:

To be free from error. Now, I'll ask again: tell me how you think Reality works, so I can see whether this innocent bliss of yours has any real value. Or was your question your answer?

Yes the answer was in my question.

Then I assume you think Reality is created by desire. Where do you think desire exists? In some other-world, some magical realm transcending anything one can experience, perhaps?

Ah - you have a bone to pick with me.

The very reality that you are compelled to involve yourself in by reading and posting. Congrads - welcome to the desire of life itself.

It depends on what you mean by "Reality works". Its function is expansion - meta and micro, inward and outward, ever willing to transcend previous experience and being.


Since this "Reality" has a particular pigeon-holed function, at least not including the opposite of your listed functions, then it cannot be Ultimate Reality, which is all possible realities. Thus, it cannot have any function at all. Understanding this reveals how Reality works.

What pigeon hole can you put the transcendance of time and space in? If you think I am stating less than what transpires by and through your own experience - by all means tear it apart.

You said in a post I was caught in a trap. Are you certain and if so elaborate this flaw in logic.

A koan for you Miss Jones;
Are you one with the nature of two?

This is how I interpret your question:

You = the nature of anything
One = unified, the same as
Nature = what is
Two = dualism

Yes, since dualism has the same fundamental nature as anything else.



Kelly

So you believe in unified duality?
Do you embrace or surrender to this duality you experience?

Kelly wrote:

I have to write this, because by challenging you, I put red-hot tongs into my own heart.

Of course, there can be no greater expression of pure love, than when someone tries to foster in another, the great joy of living in Truth.

You are correct in your evaluation of me - I do spend a lot of my time in frivolous pursuits. I really should do more to strengthen and focus my mind.

But what can I say? I am doing the best I can - and that’s all anyone can do.

Sue

Sue,

How would you evaluate this passage from Kierkegaard (given your willingness to openly discuss the long struggle with karma) ? I'm particularly curious about the notion of offence in regretting one's surrender to Truth, through being led out by a persuasive argument.

For the sermon ought not to establish an invidious distinction between the talented and the untalented, it ought rather in the unity of the Holy Ghost to fix attention exclusively upon the requirement that actions must correspond with words. Thou simple man, even if thou wert of all men the most limited --- in case thy life expresses the little thou hast understood, thou dost speak more potently than the eloquence of orators! And thou woman, although thou art entirely mute in gracious silence --- in case thy life expresses what thou hast heard, thine eloquence is more potent than the art of all orators!

Such is the case. But let us beware of grasping at what is too high; for because it is true, it does not follow that we are able to do it. And thou, my hearer, wilt reflect that the more lofty the conception of religion is, the more stern it is; but from this it does not follow that thou canst bear it, it would perhaps be to thee an occasion of offence and of perdition. Perhaps thou art still in need of this lower form of the religious, requiring a certain art in the presentation of it to render it more attractive. The strictly religious man is one whose life is essentially action --- and his presentation of religion is far more impertinent and more lenten than the more perfectly composed oration. If thou, my hearer, art of this mind, then accept this book [For Self-Examination, "The Mirror of the Word"] and read it for edification. It is not to be ascribed to my perfection, nor to thine, that this discourse is composed as it is; on the contrary, it is (from a godly standpoint) an imperfection and a weakness. I acknowledge --- and thou too, wilt thou not? --- my imperfection; and so thou wilt acknowledge thine --- not to me, no, that is not required, but to thyself and to God. Alas, we who call ourselves Christians are, Christianly understood, so coddled, so far from being what Christianity requires of them that call themselves Christians, men who have died to the world; we have hardly even a notion of that sort of seriousness, we cannot yet dispense with or renounce the artistic presentation and its soothing effect, cannot endure the true impression of reality --- well then, let us at least be honest and admit it. If some one does not straightaway understand what I say here and what is intended by it, let him be slow to judge, let him take his time, we shall soon get closer to the subject. Ah, but whoever thou art, have confidence, surrender thyself. There is no question of any force I might employ --- I the most powerless of men --- but there shall not even be employed the least persuasion or craft or guile or allurement to draw thee so far out that thou mightest (as nevertheless for all that thou surely oughtest not, and surely wouldst not if thy faith were great) --- thou mightest regret that thou didst surrender thyself; believe me (I say it to my own shame), I also am too much coddled.

Kelly

Kelly wrote:

Just as an example, you don't seem to think living with a young boy-man, your son, perpetuates the idiocy of motherhood. Does this mean you really think he is helping you to be committed and not distracted from philosophy? How much is the role of motherhood a comfort and an escape from philosophy? Four years is a long time, for yourself and for the boy.

I wonder if it's time for him to go and live with David.

Would that constitute the idiocy of motherhood?

Perhaps you know more of Sue's activities and behaviours than I do. But clearly, is it not more reasonable to leave a child in the care of a reasonable mother than to cast him out onto the streets (which you yourself are yet to master) or into the hands of the state?

Do you really think it is necessary for the human race to go backwards before it can go forwards? Is the getting of wisdom solely a matter of clashing directly with environment?

How would you weigh up the benefit to wisdom between leaving him with Sue and sending him off to live with David? What compromises do you suppose Sue is making that David would not have to make?

Kelly,

Kierkegaard is speaking about the philosophic life. Some men develop faster than others, or start earlier in their lives than others, and some men are able to go all the way, whilst others may remain on a lower level. Whatever the case may be, all these men are all subject to their karma.

One of them may wish that his weaknesses were not so many, another may consider that he is ‘too old’ to really get far; and another may give philosophy away completely, because he wants to have a happy life. It’s their karma. What else are they going to do?

If any of these men did feel “offended” by anything mentioned above, it would just mean that their understanding of Nature was still undeveloped, and that they needed more time for their thoughts to mature.

Nature is in control of everything – all we can do is our best, with what we’ve got.


Kierkegaard wrote:

What a difference there is, between the powerful puff of an animated breeze at the beginning - and a steady wind which uniformly fills the sails so that you advance steadily under full sail.

Sue

There were a few interesting posts to which I intended to reply. Now, seems like everything is down the usual tit for tat path. I have been writing here for a few years now and I have engaged in that sort of crap too many times. Gets old.

I may be back in a few days but, right now, I am more interested in geography.

Faizi

sue hindmarsh wrote:If any of these men did feel “offended” by anything mentioned above, it would just mean that their understanding of Nature was still undeveloped, and that they needed more time for their thoughts to mature.

I've had so much anger erupt in the last few days, it's obvious I've got a lot of work to do. I've been very gullible, assuming that you, Kevin, David et al. who talk regularly, passionately, and eloquently, about Truth actually live it. The only honorable thing for me to do, is be perfect - and until then, be silent. Why would the hermitic life be meaningful to me, as Dan asked me back in June? Because it's a quarantine of living what one should speak, for those too weak to live their talk.

My last offering, which may be useful to biological females that are interested in philosophy (about the options of existence):


- Sue's is an interesting approach. In a highly feminine society, where people instinctively disbelieve, and downright love the lies of women, you as a woman will not declare she/you is a sage, or that she understands Ultimate Reality. No one would take any notice. But if you (as you are doing) say, "I am a lying woman" and give crisp demonstrations of the nature of woman, it is actually a reminder of truth, and people will actually think of truth-telling. You could even back it up by being a mother, wearing subtly girlie clothes, keeping fit/sexy, the whole clown shebang. Live cunningly like a jester, entertain and be hateful simultaneously. It would help to foster the deceitfulness you reject, but it may be the only kind of truthful existence and useful example open to you.

- Be simple and straightforward, and do your best to believe A=A, even though a woman is thinking it. Just say what you reason is true, and try NOT to trust it's true, because you're a woman reasoning. You will probably never be noticed at all, and would be encouraging women to think that women with accurate reasoning can be wise, as well as loveable and womanly. You'd be just like the early foolhardy leaders of the suffragette movement.

- Have a sex change, and stop profitting from slipping by default into female roles. And then be a simple man, either as above, or as a silent hermit.

- Kill yourself. Being so choked by disgust, suicide would end the nightmare of never trusting anything you reason to be true. It's a form of capitulation, but it is difficult to serve God on the enemy's side.

- Be a hermit, loving Truth alone and silently. Truth will be "dead" to all and sundry, and you will have helped it die. But, at least you will have been loyal to the end. (What would the new Zarathustra say to the hermit in the forest - and what Truthlessness would he be proclaiming to the people in Pied Cow?)

- Kevin's approach: but instead of chasing women to remind oneself they aren't interested in wisdom, chase men to mock any claims you make of being wise. Disgust and irritate the intelligent men you meet, so they realise your nature. It may not work, they might just take your example and follow it. But it would be a lot of fun, because you could go on outings, have your coffee and MacDonalds paid for, have more than one pair of shoes, make friends at the gym, have parties, families (adopted), even a relationship with your own mother. You'd be the kingpin in people's lives, and deprecate your ideals like everyone else does, just to remember that female kingpins are actually idiots (like our pollies). You'd fit right in. But being the altrustic woman, "his helpmate" would actually undermine your entire mission.

- Help men form a secret gynocidal association, knocking women off on the sly. As long as you praise women, they won't mind.

- Write something like The Truth Paper, to satirise the female sage.


Time to choose.



Kelly

kjones wrote: I've had so much anger erupt in the last few days, it's obvious I've got a lot of work to do. I've been very gullible, assuming that you, Kevin, David et al. who talk regularly, passionately, and eloquently, about Truth actually live it. The only honorable thing for me to do, is be perfect - and until then, be silent.

Only as far as you live, no: are truth, you can know truth and know how to live it in your situation. Can you go beyond your thoughts of others, your assumptions, beyond even your teachers? A man must eventually stand alone, or perish.

Responding to Kelly's latest post -- what happened? Heavy dose of reality? How?

Faizi

.

Unidian wrote:I have been on full disability for "cyclothymic disorder" for six years.

Psychologists have finally come up with a modern word for Samsara?

I have never been forced to take any medications, and until recently, I was unmedicated for several years. I voluntarily started back on an SSRI a few weeks ago to "take the edge off."

I guess that relieves one's motivation too.

In reality, whether or not I have anything like "cyclothymic disorder" is questionable. I do struggle with depression and anxiety at times, but the official diagnosis is largely a matter of convenience. Like several others here, my real disability is being a thinking individual. That alone is a very real impediment to "making a living" and would be sufficient to secure a pension in a rational world. Since we don't live in a rational world, however, one must obtain a "diagnosis."

If the world was rational, then we'd all have to make a living! Nevertheless, i quite agree with your sentiments.

Later in this thread you outline the process and key ingredients of getting a disability pension, which in my experience are similar to those in Australia. However, as for having to have a "diagnosis", i'm not sure about that in Australia. In my last interview, before they awarded me a pension, the officer all but ditched their terminology and asked me to describe myself. No more was said on the topic, and i haven't received any information since. Just a card and money.

.

Holy Shit... Why couldn't I see it before?

Kelly Jones is a stereotypical butch-lesbo .... duhh

Nothin 'gainst lesbians but it does make your whole quest of becoming very male (buzz-cut, male clothes, testerone hormones, the "rugged" life, disdain for girlie-feminine people and things) a pretty typical image of a modern day butch-lesbian.

Ras

Ras866,

I suppose she does have that 'confused sexuality' thing happening, yet I don't think it has anything to do with her being, or not being a lesbian.

What do you think of Kelly's Truth Paper?

Sue