GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Since a society of intelligent beings would always have the global population numbers at their disposal, it seems to me that if the levels reached a very low level, that they would take collective action to reproduce, like the baby boomer movement only more intelligent.

It is important to note some of the reasons preventing intelligent people from reproducing –

1. The population is already too high in many areas.
2. It is difficult to find masculine women who will produce healthy and intelligent offspring.
3. The financial burden of raising a child at this stage of our economical evolution is too bothersome.

So perhaps In the future, with better technology and a changing economy, it will be easier to guarantee that intelligent children are introduced into the world.

I'm not sure I understand why you want a masculine woman?

I'm not sure I understand why you want a masculine woman?

Isn't it obvious that he is gay?

A real man (or boy) doesn't go around bragging that if it weren't for his parents carrying his weight, he'd be dead. A person should only suck on momma's tits and have his diapers changed by someone else for so long, before he becomes ridiculous. Not a real person -- just a being with the potential of becoming one -- like a baby.

I don't really hate losers, but those that think they are winners, and even look down on everybody else, really do get on my nerves. They are beyond deluded.

-

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Boyan wrote:

This is not the reason, except in China. This would be the last thing preventing intelligent people from reproducing.

China, India, Indonesia, and most major cities in the western world are drastically overpopulated; don’t you think this is a reasonable factor for deciding not to have children? Why bring more people into the world, when we are incapable of taking care of the ones we have now, and we are incapable of looking after the earth? Intelligent people are able to ignore their biological drives in favor of the empirical evidence, and this ability is a masculine thing.

Wouldn't intelligent people thought the world would be a better place with more intelligent children/people, and decided to give their contribution?

It seems to me that relatively masculine people are able to dedicate themselves to one cause of wisdom that they realize they have an act for, whether it be science/invention or life-negating philosophy. Both are masculine to different degrees, but science requires an individual that has a bit more feminine conditioning. Do you think Einstein would have had the insights he did if he was married at a young age, with a bunch of kids, and if he had the enormous responsibility of providing constant food, clothes and shelter for a bunch of dependents?

Einstein was married to Mileva, his first wife, in his early twenties.

Boyan wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Do you think Einstein would have had the insights he did if he was married at a young age, with a bunch of kids, and if he had the enormous responsibility of providing constant food, clothes and shelter for a bunch of dependents?

Einstein was married to Mileva, his first wife, in his early twenties.

Einstein's wives and 5 children

Shahrazad wrote:

I don't really hate losers, but those that think they are winners, and even look down on everybody else, really do get on my nerves. They are beyond deluded.

It’s not that I’m looking down at anyone, I just stating what I believe is the masculine ideal that the species is evolving towards. You can be defensive all you want, but it doesn’t change humanities fate. And I’m not saying I’m totally perfect, but I recognize the direction we should be moving in, and it is away from conventional family, romance, love and all the rest of it, it is towards some sort of asexual being beyond male and female altogether, but it will exhibit masculine psychological traits.

Boyan wrote:

Wouldn't intelligent people thought the world would be a better place with more intelligent children/people, and decided to give their contribution?

Yes, If they could find a female with good genes, and they could earn a living in this hellish civilization, but that is a difficult task. And I’m not just attacking females here because it is evident that men are deficient genetically as well.

For example: one can pretty much tell by examining a child’s behavior from an early age if they have the goods for enlightenment.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Einstein was married to Mileva, his first wife, in his early twenties.

I stand corrected, but perhaps that is why he couldn’t go all the way and become perfectly enlightened. However, I do not doubt that he had scientific genius.

My point is that a wife and children take up a lot of space in the mind, a lot of mental capacity needs to be dedicated to them, which could be used for other things. It’s not totally impossible to make it work, but for someone that is accustomed to nirvana, it seems like a huge compromise and a chore, and for what? Companionship? material and sensual rewards? And It seems that if a man is not strong mentally, a wife’s presence could slowly feminize him over time. Having a family and a relationship with women could be possible as long as for the majority of the time, the man is on its own, and not dependent on her for any sort of emotional benefits. However, such an arrangement wouldn’t make most women happy because emotional rewards are very important to her, and if she doesn’t get them, she feels something is horribly wrong with the relationship.

One interesting difference is how men and women fantasize about sex. Women fantasize about the sensual aspects of sex, how it would feel to kiss him, how it would feel for him to be close to her body, skin against skin, she imagines his face being close to hers, all her fantasies are based on sensual unity and exchange. However, a man’s fantasies are quite different, they are based on conquering the female’s body, using her as an unfeeling object, taking her body quickly, and reaching orgasm quickly, while moving on. Much of his fantasies have no feminine component to them at all, he secretly wants to demean her, destroy her and ruin her.

These are two major differences from deep in the unconscious, and they expose a vital truth between the sexes. The masculine is unfeeling, cold, and logical, whereas the feminine is warm, sensual and irrational. And the masculine has a secret disdain towards the feminine, which is exposed during the sexual act.

Philosophaster wrote: No. I have heard, countless times, from self-proclaimed "highly intelligent people" that unreflective fools are the only kind of people who would have children (or do some other thing), the implication being that their own lack of desire for children (or whatever) is a mark of their high intelligence.

Maybe you can forgive me for assuming that you all were gearing up for just such a discussion.

Done.

Some "unreflective fools" too don't have the desire for children. To claim that the lack of desire for children is a sure sign of intelligence is foolish. Those "highly intelligent people" who claim so, perhaps aren't so highly intelligent, and perhaps are themselves fools.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:SFor example: one can pretty much tell by examining a child’s behavior from an early age if they have the goods for enlightenment.

Oh? And how many children have you raised to adulthood, to be able to look back and say 'yup, that was the early sign of enlightenment'? or are you just speaking what feels true to you?

These are two major differences from deep in the unconscious, and they expose a vital truth between the sexes. The masculine is unfeeling, cold, and logical, whereas the feminine is warm, sensual and irrational. And the masculine has a secret disdain towards the feminine, which is exposed during the sexual act.

let me guess: you don't deal with women much, do you?.. Not much sex either, I wager, except with yourself.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Tomas,

Ryan,

Let me take a lucky guess...

You still live with your parents.

Don’t be fooled by your baby boomer mentality Tomas, the world is changing, and living with ones parents doesn’t have any bearing on ones ability to be logical, your humor is based on a sort of universal group-think that is becoming outdated, namely, that one needs to be financial successful, secure and totally independent with money to be intelligent and reliable in argument, but this is furthest from the truth.

Actually, having the financial burden taken away can actually increase ones ability to be reasonable because very little energy needs to be put into survival. I actually highly recommend living with ones parents for any young male thinker, especially in the beginning. It can be a vital step to get grounded in clarity before you live a minimalist lifestyle.

I'm dead serious, no humor here.

As long as you are paying your fair share of the bills, i don't have a problem with it per se... it's just that did "you" ask or your parent(s) ask you to climb back into the nest?

Or, have you never been able to make it on your own?

You have a certain type of cliche-talk down pat...

BTW - Aren't you the one (some time back) that are banned from entering the United States? In and out of jail etc.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

Victor,

Oh? And how many children have you raised to adulthood, to be able to look back and say 'yup, that was the early sign of enlightenment'? or are you just speaking what feels true to you?

I think there are certain signs, For instance: A child that is able to sit alone with nature and play through observing how things are, while using his imagination with or without toys is a good sign, and the less emotion in his playing the better. And the more obsessive he is with studying things the better.

Whereas a boy that always needs his toys, and doesn’t pay attention to nature as much, and while he’s playing he gains a lot of emotional satisfaction such as smashing two Tonka trunks together has a far less chance in my view.

One can also analyze the type of personality the child has – for instance: a reactionary child who always takes things personally, and cries easily, can be a sign of poor genes, compared to a child that isn’t as easily offended because he is more robust mentally.

let me guess: you don't deal with women much, do you?.. Not much sex either, I wager, except with yourself.

Oddly enough, I’ve actually had a lot of sexual experience with women, and after every encounter, I usually analyze my behavior compared to hers, as a means to understand psychological differences.

And It is no secret that some of the most common male fantasies involve demeaning women, whereas the most common female fantasies involve imagining how she felt being close to him and so on…

Tomas wrote:

Or, have you never been able to make it on your own?

Not very well. I basically lack the ambition to work a job I hate merely as a means to survive. I’m basically only able to work part-time jobs that require very little tedious mental and physical effort such as security or something like that. I may actually apply for a personality disorder if I eventually get fired from all the security companies in my city. Sometimes survival in modern civilization just seems like it isn’t worth the effort.

Tomas wrote:

BTW - Aren't you the one (some time back) that are banned from entering the United States? In and out of jail etc.

No, not me.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Boyan wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Do you think Einstein would have had the insights he did if he was married at a young age, with a bunch of kids, and if he had the enormous responsibility of providing constant food, clothes and shelter for a bunch of dependents?

Einstein was married to Mileva, his first wife, in his early twenties.

Einstein's wives and 5 children

Yeah, i'd heard that back in the early 60s that he was quite the "ladies man" in more ways than one.

ps- Good to see you bounce back here every now and then, Elizabeth.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

One interesting difference is how men and women fantasize about sex. Women fantasize about the sensual aspects of sex, how it would feel to kiss him, how it would feel for him to be close to her body, skin against skin, she imagines his face being close to hers, all her fantasies are based on sensual unity and exchange. However, a man’s fantasies are quite different, they are based on conquering the female’s body, using her as an unfeeling object, taking her body quickly, and reaching orgasm quickly, while moving on. Much of his fantasies have no feminine component to them at all, he secretly wants to demean her, destroy her and ruin her.

Damn, I must be so feminine, because to me the best part of the act is the foreplay. Rudolph, I am fairly young, but I can with certainty say this - Foreplay is a delicate, fine art, while the rest anyone can do.

using her as an unfeeling object, taking her body quickly, and reaching orgasm quickly, while moving on.

What? Are you talking about sex or rape? Making love or caveman's grab 'n' drag her and inseminate before the competition shows up?

As for your desire to ruin and destroy the female, I'll leave that to those with more psychological expertise.

These are two major differences from deep in the unconscious, and they expose a vital truth between the sexes. The masculine is unfeeling, cold, and logical, whereas the feminine is warm, sensual and irrational. And the masculine has a secret disdain towards the feminine, which is exposed during the sexual act.

When you speak of masculine and feminine you speak of abstract metaphysical entities - universals of some sort.

By your thinking Nietzsche had more feminine than masculine in him. He is known for exalting irrationality; he himself was fiercely passionate and deeply emotional. His was also a brilliant, critical mind sharply exposing and illuminating everything he looked into. He was, as his artistic metaphysics shows, fully aware of the two sides of the soul - rational and the irrational; Apollonian and Dionysian, and explored and used them both.

Einstein said something to the effect - 'If I was thinking rationally, I would had never came up with relativity.'

Shutting down the irrational completely is making life poorer and is simply unnatural.

Boyan,

Foreplay is a delicate, fine art, while the rest anyone can do.

Yes, I agree, but foreplay takes a lot of time and effort. Men don’t really need it, as they only do it for women. A man mostly feels with his penis, whereas a woman feels more with her entire body, and that is why she needs foreplay. A man can become aroused just by a second of visual stimulation, whereas a woman requires much more work, you need to kiss her softly, use your fingers, hold her close, make her feel loved, and all the rest of it until she gets aroused, it is really quite the chore actually. It is interesting how after a man has an orgasm, he becomes rigid and uninterested in sex, whereas women can keep having orgasms, and keep experiencing sensual enjoyment in her body for long periods after that. For most men, a kiss feels good for him before his orgasm only because he knows that the kiss is a necessary step to the orgasm, whereas a kiss is a kiss for a woman, and it is just as important to her as the orgasm, maybe even more important because she still enjoys kissing her man after she and him have had an orgasm, which illustrates just how feminine she is!

So there is only a small part of man that is feminine (penis), whereas all of woman is feminine (her body). But you are correct, a woman can train her man to think more feminine, but this is the highest act of manipulation! Such a man should not be proud of such pussy whipping!

Updated: Actually I thought of something ironic – it is ironic that even though only a small part of the male body is feminine (penis) a large amount of his brain is dedicated to mating, and he thinks about sex far more than females on average, whose entire body is feminine, and her mating center is much smaller...

As for your desire to ruin and destroy the female, I'll leave that to those with more psychological expertise.

It is a very common male fantasy; it is nothing new or surprising. Most males that I’ve spoken with say one of their most thought about sexual fantasies is anal sex with a women, probably because of how destructive and degrading it is. It is an egotistical masculine gesture that says, “you maybe beautiful, but I am king, and I can do whatever I want to you”

One could introduce a psychological theory that the anal sex fantasy of men towards women could be his way of trying defeat femininity in himself, and her femininity controlling him, it could be a man’s way of trying to defeat the feminine demons within himself and within her that seek to control his life.

My point is that there is nothing beautiful, loving or sacred about the sexual experience, it is a crude animal act, and nothing more.

He is known for exalting irrationality; he himself was fiercely passionate and deeply emotional. His was also a brilliant, critical mind sharply exposing and illuminating everything he looked into. He was, as his artistic metaphysics shows, fully aware of the two sides of the soul - rational and the irrational; Apollonian and Dionysian, and explored and used them both.

Nietzsche was not enlightened though, he couldn’t take it all the way, he was far too emotional, and he had far too many attachments, art being one of them.

Agreed Boyan.

Rationality = security and predictability.

Creativity, virtue, greatness, etc, all had some irrational element to them in Nietzsche's view.

Eliminating all passion and intuition is simply a form of protection from the harshness of life, an avoidance of suffering.

Neil,

Creativity, virtue, greatness, etc, all had some irrational element to them in Nietzsche's view.

Nietzsche’s view of creativity was very superficial though, it spawned the psychedelic movement in the US, with Jim Morrison and all the rest of it. Nietzsche didn’t realize that you could be consistently creative – meaning able to describe the way things are without passion. Look at history, for the most part, passion actually distorts ‘what is’ and causes men to behave like irrational madmen.

Creativity is certainly not "what is" though. If you stay within your secure quarters you will never find new things.

Christian morality aims to make all equal and mediocre -- complete absence of creativity.

Neil,

Creativity is certainly not "what is" though. If you stay within your secure quarters you will never find new things.

Christian morality aims to make all equal and mediocre -- complete absence of creativity.

It depends on how you defend creativity, I define creativity as the ability of the individual to consistently describe the way things are in reality, without any sort of emotional distortion, and to do so, one's mind needs to have a relationship with 'what is' which is beyond passion altogether.

However, if you define creativity as inventing some new gadget or thinking up a new scientific theory to help man manipulate reality better than he is now, then I agree. A certain amount of suffering and perseverance is needed to accomplish these types of goals.

But the latter is not my interest, as this is a forum dedicated to the nature of enlightenment, not the nature of scientific martyrdom.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It depends on how you defend creativity, I define creativity as the ability for the mind to consistently describe the way things are in reality, without any sort of emotional distortion then one's mind needs to have a relationship with 'what is' which is beyond passion altogether.

So when does it become QRRS? You have learned well the ways of redefining words in terms of other redefined words to muddy the waters to victory.

Neil,

So when does it become QRRS? You have learned well the ways of redefining words in terms of other redefined words to muddy the waters to victory.

There are two types of creativity - the creativity of science/innovation/discovery, and the creativity of wisdom (seeing and experiencing reality as it is). And there are two different types of individuals that are suited for each. It seems to me that the closer one approaches sage consciousness, the less likely it is that they could ever be a productive scientist.

For instance: if you know that you do not have a disposition for enlightenment, and you would rather dedicate yourself to science or some other creative venture, then do it. If you can suffer on principle to accomplish some sort of long-term goal, and that is what you feel is important, then don’t allow the views of a few rational philosophers to stand in your way.

We all have a different way of subjectively experiencing the world, and since you have been continuously rejecting the pillars of enlightenment, then this could be an indication that you are better suited for some other pursuit, perhaps science, who knows, whatever you feel is important.

However, if you feel that is important to resort to wide scale violence to solve some of the world's problems, as you stated before, I do not approve such an idea as I still reaffirm that there are much more rational ways to solve the world's problems without resorting to acts of barbarity.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:There are two types of creativity - the creativity of science/innovation/discovery, and the creativity of wisdom (seeing and experiencing reality as it is).

Not if you, like myself, define "two" as "fifteen", which happens to coincide with my ultimate wisdom more coherently.

Boyan wrote: Einstein said something to the effect - 'If I was thinking rationally, I would had never came up with relativity.'

Shutting down the irrational completely is making life poorer and is simply unnatural.

I tend to make a distinction between irrationality and intuition/creativity. Intuition and creativity are important components of the rational process and in deepening one's understanding of things. It is important to know how to free the mind from its habitual thought-processes and enable it to see things from different angles and make new connections, etc. Otherwise, the scope of one's rationality will be limited.

As far as philosophy is concerned, rationality is essentially a judge. It is the judger of what is true and what is false. Intuition and creativity, on the other hand, are like barristers who bring matters to the attention of the judge. They are the providers of the material that needs to be judged. By esteeming irrationality, we undercut the role of rationality in making these judgments.

The best art and the best philosophy is made by those who are very intellectual and critical because they are able to direct their intuitive and creative abilities along sustained pathways, thereby unearthing experiences and knowledge previously hidden. By the same token, most art is banal and uninteresting because it is conducted by people who lack intellect and rational judgment. These artists might have creativity in spades, but the results they produce are nearly always vague and aimless.

In light of this, I disagree with Einstein's statement above. In conceiving of relativity, he most certainly did employ rationality in every step of the way. It's just that he had the creative and intuitive ability to employ his rationality away from the norm.

-

Your barristers are necessarily irrational though David. There is a part of the group (barristers + judge) that is irrational, and a part that is rational. Isn't that exactly what Nietzsche and Einstein (in that quote) said?

The part of the group that is exercising rationality is the judge, while the barristers are a mix of intuitions, creative insights, past experiences, past reasonings, society's beliefs, the thoughts of others, and so on.

An irrational judge is useless.

-

Yes,it's a good analogy.

Out of interest David, who would you consider a good example of an intelligent and rational artist within the visual arts?

David Quinn wrote:The part of the group that is exercising rationality is the judge, while the barristers are a mix of intuitions, creative insights, past experiences, past reasonings, society's beliefs, the thoughts of others, and so on.

An irrational judge is useless.

Aren't purely rational barristers are also useless?

Quality lines of reasoning, either from others or from one's own past efforts, can be valuable parts of the mix. Note that my listed included both rational and irrational material.

-