GENIUS FORUMS

Hey passthrough,

okay, let's take this out of a work context for now, and focus on casual social interaction and encounters.

Why do you not like working with other women?

What I mean by submit is depend on them and be reliable on them and support them, and lose that 'independance.' like if i encounter a person who is really self-disciplined and in control of his desires and doesn't submit meaning that doesn't submit out of fear, or desire to be recognized, or just to rely on, then i won't submit to him either, but would still retain that 'independance'. what nietzsche meant when he said that the 'strong' are never uncomfortable from the dominating body languages of other people.

yes sabotaging someone is immature and foolish

so when i say, "welcome to the club" i mean when i encounter someone who is as disciplined or more disciplined than me, in terms of body language, self control, etc... then i would acknowledge them because they are real men in the traditional sense of the word..

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay Faust, the board has said they have heard enough of my personal life, but since you seem intent on this interest... and my life was unusual, so I don't know how relevant this is, but here it goes.

I recall being the independent sort growing up (and getting chided for that by my mother - as if that was a bad trait), but my parents tried to raise me to be more feminine. I was also chided by teachers at school for being too independent. My parents tried to deeply ingrain in my mind that there was no way I could ever "make it" without a man. Being raised hearing that over and over, I lost self-confidence.

In retrospect, I recognize that my father's repetitions of how I would never survive without him was his psychological manipulation to make sure that I didn't leave him. He was not an easy person to tolerate - his other children wouldn't have anything to do with him. Nevertheless, hearing how I would never survive repeated for years took more of a toll on my confidence.

As a child and teen, I did think in terms of what my needs were (and yes, Dan - my mother did specifically use the phrase "You shouldn't keep thinking of yourself so much. You should think of my needs and what I want."), but I was also very hungry for praise, and would do just about anything for approval. Sometime in my 20's, it became much easier for me to do things for others than for myself. It is easier to keep the house clean if someone else is going to be here than if it is just me. When I had a husband and when I was taking care of my father, I would carefully prepare balanced meals, bake bread from scratch, etc. - and it was easy because the reward was in being appreciated. Things that were not appreciated ended up not getting done. With just me, cleaning is a chore and only gets done as is really needed, I don't bake for myself, I might cook a pot of beans and rice and eat off that for a week, or just eat stuff that does not require any preparation - cottage cheese, broccoli, yogurt, or grab some grapefruit off the tree.

I don't think that makes me "not a whole person" though. Guys don't do certain things whether or not there is another person there to appreciate it. I would say that another person makes it easier for me to be more than who I am just for myself. I don't consider myself important enough to go to the extra effort for, but I value others more than I value myself, so I will be my whole self for someone else, whereas I don't put forth my best effort if it is just for me. It isn't living through others, it is living for others.

I do feel as if when I am not of any good to anyone else, I am not of any good at all - but I do not think that makes me "not a full person." Anyone who is not of use to anyone else is anything from a drain on society to merely a moot point.

edit to add:
I do think that part of the reason I got married was the echoes of my parents telling me I would never "make it" without a man, and my ex also often repeated that I could not survive without him. However, during the marriage, I did significantly more to take care of him both physically and financially. He, of course, thought he was doing more and insisted he was, but when I showed him the bills I was paying and drew it out on paper (well, at least after that he was willing to pay for the insurance on one of his own cars). Women are told over and over that we can't - and if you tell anyone the same thing from many sources often enough, a person's emotions will feel that even if they see that reality is something different.

Guys really believe that they're superior and always the providers, though. I'd stopped keeping track of how much came from who's paycheck when we got married because I thought it was all "ours" - but it was when he kept going on about it that I even bothered to think in those terms - and saw that not only was I carrying my own weight, I was carrying most of his, and being treated - well, as I said, he's now the ex.
.

why do you value others more than yourself? i would try do it equally, or more yourself first. Yes the 'male provider' thing is a real comedy. so it is mostly upbringing that makes all these girls i encounter, socially dependant on men..

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Faust13 wrote:I instead want women to do the same as men, that is be masculine, territorial, lack of social conventions towards pathetic authority figures, they perhaps do have contempt for them, but alot of times are too cowardly to show it. And the women that I encounter simply cannot do this.

Oh, that's what you were asking about. Almost none of the females I worked with in various hospitals had a problem with standing up to anyone, and working in the hospital was the only place where I didn't end up taking over except when it was job-appropriate for me to do so. Although I was raised in a militaristic fashion and was very rank-conscious despite a civilian setting, sometimes I end up with more of a leadership role than my position dictates. Most people find that I have an odd combination of being very approachable yet with a commanding presence. As a result, people would come to me with things, which was fine if I actually was in charge or if the supervisor felt secure, but would really tick off an insecure supervisor. Beyond that, if there is an emergency and no one looks like they know what they are doing, I'm taking over. If someone looks like they've got it, I'll help if needed - but if everyone's panicked and/or clueless I automatically take a leadership position. It isn't even a choice, really - it's what I'm compelled to do.

I guess in a way I was raised like that, too. Despite how authoritarian my parents were under smooth conditions, whenever anything went wrong they blamed me. I eventually figured out that if something was going wrong, I'd better fix it. Now that's just a reflex.
.

yes, this is also what i'm talking about. Now you should have this mentality for yourself too.

Shardrol wrote:

Faust13 wrote:Not only verbally direct and straightforward, but body language as well. See most women due to their physical weakness, turn it into a strength by submitting in order to control men. I instead want women to do the same as men, that is be masculine, territorial, lack of social conventions towards pathetic authority figures, they perhaps do have contempt for them, but alot of times are too cowardly to show it. And the women that I encounter simply cannot do this.

I don't feel strong & am not trained to fight, but I am tall (6 feet) & not delicately built, so I have not often felt the physical intimidation that seems to be the ordinary experience of many women. Here in New York City I consciously cultivate a 'don't fuck with me' projection as I walk around & for the most part it works.

I defend my territory (on the subway, for example) by intentionally taking up more space than I actually need so there is a kind of buffer between me & the next person. But if someone breaches this barrier I'm more likely to get up & move rather than confront them.

I have no automatic respect for authority figures but I don't feel the need to demonstrate this unless they impinge on me in some way. I was much more hostile in my youth & couldn't tolerate anyone thinking they had intimidated me. I engaged every catcalling construction worker in a 'go fuck yourself' shouting match. I couldn't let anything go.

These days it doesn't make any difference. If someone thinks I'm submitting to them I don't feel I have to make sure they understand it's not true. I guess I care less what people think of me but that makes me more peaceful & less confrontative than I used to be.

The city is a good behavior lab. Every day brings an opportunity to see how you deal with homeless people, drunks, marauding teenagers, crazy old ladies, mindless authoritarianism, people's sense of entitlement & all the rest of it.

I have a friend who's a martial arts expert & he walks around with a physical confidence that I have never felt myself. He knows he could kill someone if they attacked him & this makes him quite calm & unlikely to get into confrontations. My confidence, such as it is, is not physically based & I can see that that's a handicap. I don't think many women walk around with that sort of body confidence. Even my (female) friend who has a black belt in karate doesn't.
.

physical stature and strength has nothing to do with what i'm talking about, although it helps, especially a 6 feet woman, damn!

you couldn't tolerate someone thinking that they intimidated you? or were you actually intimidated and couldn't control your body, because usually if we can't tolerate it it's usually because we are intimidated.

you only showed respect for authority figures when they infringed on you? well you shouldn't.

i understand this 'bitch' behaviour that you used in order to control yourself. the problem with it though is that it's compensation for weakness, just like how men try to show mean faces without having the courage itself.

i understand when you say that you don't care if a person thinks you're submitting, but don't confuse submission with victimization. sure we can submit without feeling victimized, but it's the submitting part that i want women not to do.

Faust13

I'm not sure I know what you mean about 'intimidated & couldn't control your body'. With me it was a mental thing. I was disturbed at anyone thinking they could control me through fear so even if I was scared, all this anger would well up that would make me seem unafraid. I never got into actual combat, where I'm sure I couldn't have sustained this pose.

No, I meant I only felt compelled to demonstrate contempt for authority figures when they impinged on me directly. Now I no longer feel it at all. Demonstrating contempt is a waste of time.

You are quite right about the 'bitch' behavior being a compensation for weakness, at least when it comes to physical weakness. I once read an interview with a guy in jail for all sorts of assaults & he said that the way he chose his (female) victims was doing something experimental, like asking them the time, & seeing how they reacted. Many women are addicted to being 'nice' & will find it impossible (or at least very difficult) to extricate themselves from even an unwanted conversation with a dangerous-seeming stranger. He preyed on this quality. If he asked them the time & they ignored him or just told him without stopping, he'd pick someone else.

I don't think I understand what you mean by 'submitting'. I mean going along with someone else's will when I actually disagree. Sometimes the disagreement is not important.

It's funny that right after I typed this I was faced with the 'preview' or 'submit' buttons. I picked preview. :)
.

Before we begin, I sincerely hope this serves a purpose other than to draw deeper lines in the sand than already exist, but rather build a bridge across the divide because this whole male/female dynamic going on here gets a little old.

Faust 13: okay, let's take this out of a work context for now, and focus on casual social interaction and encounters.

P: I have more meaningful casual social interaction and encounters at work. I spend more of my time at work than I do in casual social interaction at home. Any time spent with other friends is shallow with conversations limited to the children, ailments and people dying, that I drift off in disassociation. So, are we now venturing into my personal relationship with someone I’ve been married to for almost 25 years? I might go there a little but maybe not…we’ll see how this goes.

Faust 13: Why do you not like working with other women?

P: 20% of the time, there are some men I don’t like working with either, but with women the percentage rises to about 90%.

1. In my line of work, which I really don’t want to discuss in too much detail, it is too easy for one’s emotions/passion to get involved in resolving an issue. When I say passion, I mean it in the way that one burns for a cause to the point of being destructive to the very thing they believe in accomplishing. Women have vendettas. They want to punish someone for something, so they are ruthless, which means they are not clear thinkers.

2. Men are competitive but in a different way than women. Women get personal with their competitiveness to the point that they will not listen to someone or even use someone that knows more to get ahead…they would rather destroy that person in order to feel better about themselves. In my job, I don’t care about competition because I do not acknowledge it. There is no upward mobility in my position, I do my job 200% and I go home. Frankly, I’d rather work in a bookstore these days, but I digress.

3. Women are too frilly, feminine and gossip. These things annoy me to no end and are a cause for me to shut the door to my office in an effort not to have to listen to it.

4. There are some men that have these traits, as well, and likewise they are the 20% I’d rather not be around.

It then leads one to one’s personal life where one longs for friendships of a more intellectual and stimulating nature, but the women and men that are our friends are not this, and so mostly I read, come here, walk, do my artwork, and also take an on-line class – pretty much a solitary home life. My husband is not interested in anything but his job, running, history and surfing television news/educational channels…he’s pretty solitary too.

Other than assisting our child in graduating from college and settled into life, we pretty much have no arguments because I am a very simple person and not high maintenance…other than the fact that he worries incessantly about money and when it becomes necessary to spend it on the house, we get into some issues about it. I always acquiesce because if it weren’t for his job, I’d either be doing the fix up myself or not doing it all…so it comes down to me having to back down and act like a typical female and say it would make me happy if we did it rather than have him acknowledge that the roof is going to cave in from a leak around a chimney if we don’t do something about it, or the shower door is going to rot off the prefab shower if we don’t have it replaced by tiling it in. It really is a disgusting compromise because I’m almost forced into doing it in order to get it done. He is obsessed with me being happy. I am an intense person, so he thinks I am never happy.

Another thing that is odd is that he wants to move from a house that is already more than we need into some large monstrosity that would cost a fortune, and yet he will not pay a little money to fix up the one we have. Go figure. I stay confused on that one.

Faust 13: What I mean by submit is depend on them and be reliable on them and support them, and lose that 'independance.' like if i encounter a person who is really self-disciplined and in control of his desires and doesn't submit meaning that doesn't submit out of fear, or desire to be recognized, or just to rely on, then i won't submit to him either, but would still retain that 'independance'. what nietzsche meant when he said that the 'strong' are never uncomfortable from the dominating body languages of other people.

P: Other than this game my husband plays, I guess I’ve grown past that and further, this forum has knocked whatever I had left in me in my personal and professional life. For about 15 or more years, I have been confident enough in the work I do that I know it is good without having to be told.

On this forum is another matter…I am really wishy washy because I do not know with whom I am dealing, I am only just beginning to understand the half of what the philosophy around here is, and the level of intelligence, wisdom and academia far exceeds that of the people I am surrounded by on a daily basis….well, not everyone here, but in general, yes. It is intimidating, but what is good about this forum is that it teaches you…bad word, almost forces you to think before you speak and not so much so that you agree with the “forum philosophy” but use wisdom and reason prudently.

People have slammed David’s philosophy on here, and again I am going to have to reread and reread it over time to understand his point of view, but he had the courage to write it, post it and take criticism of it and still maintain a presence of mind. I do not always agree with some of the things he says, but then again I haven’t gained a complete understanding of what he has written either. I don’t know the guy and most likely never will, but if I can take anything away from here it would be to have the ability as he to argue calmly and rationally about what I believe to be truth.

Have I submitted here, yes, I have…however, I am trying to think first and contemplate everything before I write in an effort not to have to be in that position anymore. Even if I don’t truly understand something, I will never feel I must submit to their idea of things any longer…I’ll just keep questioning their ideas until I either understand them and/or understand why I don’t agree with them. If there was one thing I could bring to this forum is the understanding that I am not out to do anything here but learn from them…if they perceive me challenging them, they have an incorrect perception. However, some may have to be challenged in order to feel it is worth their time writing, but I would prefer an academic discussion rather than a fist fight.

Faust 13: so when i say, "welcome to the club" i mean when i encounter someone who is as disciplined or more disciplined than me, in terms of body language, self control, etc... then i would acknowledge them because they are real men in the traditional sense of the word..

P: I’m not sure one must welcome one into the club by some outward acknowledgement, for if one is this type of person it is reflected in their demeanor and actions and is returned in said fashion. If weakness is seen in the other man, it shows truly what character one possesses if one does not take advantage of that weakness, but have the presence of mind to set an example.

And although I still do not agree with your philosophy, I do find what you said interesting following my last comment:

Now others may also have these events, but they don't act on it because they aren't free, their temperments and environment simply don't spark it.

I do not agree because I think these temperaments and environment can be overcome if one truly desires the truth, but that is another thread.

Passthrough, yes if someone DESIRES the truth they will overcome their temperments and the environment. But this desire is not CHOSEN, it's inherent, we don't choose our desires, like how I don't choose to like a certain food or music, it's just in me. This is the same with Truth, if someone doesn't desire it, they simply won't seek it.

Now, here's a good example of what i'm talking about, taken from David's and Marsha's conversations..

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity04.htm


There are certain types of women who have a relatively large masculine side to them which is in constant conflict with their larger, more deep-rooted feminine sides. Marsha Faizi is such an example.

The masculine side values individuality, independence, domination, courage and will to consciousness, while the feminine side values connectedness with others, submission, freedom from pain and suffering, and will to unconsciousness. Naturally, the two sides are incompatible with one another and therefore always locked together in war.

Because Marsha has a large feminine component to her, her masculine side has to put in a tremendous amount of effort towards dominating it and keeping it quiet. For the feminine side of her *hates* individuality and independence. It is terrified of the vulnerability, responsibility and risk of exposure involved in being an existing individual, and deeply yearns to dissolve itself in the loving arms of other people.

This explains why Marsha is so forceful with her use of words and is overly-passionate, even hysterical, in her mode of expression. Her feminine side is forever *screaming* with fear and anxiety at the doings of her masculine side. Her feminine side is like a scared child being dragged against its will to some place deeply terrifying, while her masculine side is grim and focused with the effort of trying to win this relentless tug-o-war.

It also explains why Marsha is so vehemently against anything that even hints of religious wisdom and consistently rejects terms like "enlightenment", "spirituality", "Truth", and so on. For any move on her part to face these kinds of issues in a direct and conscious manner would only inflict great pain to her feminine side and dramatically increase its screaming. Marsha already has enough on her hands without the stakes being raised in this way.

Because of this, Marsha subconsciously limits her horizons. She is no longer able to conceive of life beyond the current battle between her masculine and feminine sides. It is a battle that totally consumes her. And as a result, she has come to believe that she is engaged in the mother of all battles, and that her feminine screaming and her masculine will to overcome the screaming is the most authentic activity possible in life.

In my own case, the battle occurs on a much smaller scale. I have a feminine side to me, but it is relatively small, and therefore my endeavour to dominate it and slowly eliminate it requires far less effort. The screams of my feminine side are weaker and less influential in regards my overall behaviour, which enables me conceive of a mode of existence in which the feminine screaming has disappeared altogether.

This is not to say the war that Marsha is involved in is not an important one. On the contrary, it is literally a matter of life and death for her, and I wish her all the very best in it. I'm a bit concerned, however, that she has lost sight of the bigger picture and the purpose of the entire war in the first place.

David Quinn

Faust 13:

First of all, the last part of my post was an aside and I'm not quite sure why you are responding to a conversation we had going in another thread. What was the point of the initial Q&A you wanted to address in this thread?

Second,
I'm trying to understand the point of your reply, so I am substituting Marsha for the someone in your statement in order to see the relevance. NOTE: I do not know Marsha. I am using her name and placing it into your posited statement of truth in order to understand your point.

If Marsha DESIRES the truth she will overcome her temperaments and the environment. But her desire is not CHOSEN, it's inherent, she doesn't choose her desires, like how she doesn't choose to like a certain food or music, it's just in her.

And,

This is the same with Truth, if Marsha doesn't desire it, she simply won't seek it.

I do not believe these two statements have the same meaning. One implies that she has no choice at all, it is chosen for her, and the second implies that she has a choice.

Faust, in the interest of perfectionism, would you please edit your post, highlight the words of David Quinn, then click the Quote button? It would make it much clearer that you were quoting him.
.

passthrough wrote:Faust 13:

First of all, the last part of my post was an aside and I'm not quite sure why you are responding to a conversation we had going in another thread. What was the point of the initial Q&A you wanted to address in this thread?

Second,
I'm trying to understand the point of your reply, so I am substituting Marsha for the someone in your statement in order to see the relevance. NOTE: I do not know Marsha. I am using her name and placing it into your posited statement of truth in order to understand your point.

If Marsha DESIRES the truth she will overcome her temperaments and the environment. But her desire is not CHOSEN, it's inherent, she doesn't choose her desires, like how she doesn't choose to like a certain food or music, it's just in her.

And,

This is the same with Truth, if Marsha doesn't desire it, she simply won't seek it.

I do not believe these two statements have the same meaning. One implies that she has no choice at all, it is chosen for her, and the second implies that she has a choice.

what? no. Desires aren't chosen. The desire to know the truth then is not chosen. Therefore there's no freewill. If you thought I was saying someone is free I'm not.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Faust, in the interest of perfectionism, would you please edit your post, highlight the words of David Quinn, then click the Quote button? It would make it much clearer that you were quoting him.
.

ok...

so elizabeth do you know any females that are like how David mentioned? I've seen a few around, but I just want to know how it feels to try and be "masculine". is it really hard for them? is it because they've been raised as children all their life?

David Quinn wrote, quoted by Faust:

There are certain types of women who have a relatively large masculine side to them which is in constant conflict with their larger, more deep-rooted feminine sides. Marsha Faizi is such an example.

The masculine side values individuality, independence, domination, courage and will to consciousness, while the feminine side values connectedness with others, submission, freedom from pain and suffering, and will to unconsciousness. Naturally, the two sides are incompatible with one another and therefore always locked together in war.

Because Marsha has a large feminine component to her, her masculine side has to put in a tremendous amount of effort towards dominating it and keeping it quiet. For the feminine side of her *hates* individuality and independence. It is terrified of the vulnerability, responsibility and risk of exposure involved in being an existing individual, and deeply yearns to dissolve itself in the loving arms of other people.

This explains why Marsha is so forceful with her use of words and is overly-passionate, even hysterical, in her mode of expression. Her feminine side is forever *screaming* with fear and anxiety at the doings of her masculine side. Her feminine side is like a scared child being dragged against its will to some place deeply terrifying, while her masculine side is grim and focused with the effort of trying to win this relentless tug-o-war.

It also explains why Marsha is so vehemently against anything that even hints of religious wisdom and consistently rejects terms like "enlightenment", "spirituality", "Truth", and so on. For any move on her part to face these kinds of issues in a direct and conscious manner would only inflict great pain to her feminine side and dramatically increase its screaming. Marsha already has enough on her hands without the stakes being raised in this way.

Because of this, Marsha subconsciously limits her horizons. She is no longer able to conceive of life beyond the current battle between her masculine and feminine sides. It is a battle that totally consumes her. And as a result, she has come to believe that she is engaged in the mother of all battles, and that her feminine screaming and her masculine will to overcome the screaming is the most authentic activity possible in life.

This is a very insightful writing regarding the mind of the feminine-masculine woman. I can completely identify with what he is describing here. Thank you, Faust and David.

.

Faust 13 wrote: if someone DESIRES the truth they will overcome their temperments and the environment. But this desire is not CHOSEN, it's inherent, we don't choose our desires, like how I don't choose to like a certain food or music, it's just in me. This is the same with Truth, if someone doesn't desire it, they simply won't seek it.

[Substituting Marsha for someone]

P wrote: If Marsha DESIRES the truth she will overcome her temperaments and the environment. But her desire is not CHOSEN, it's inherent, she doesn't choose her desires, like how she doesn't choose to like a certain food or music, it's just in her. This is the same with Truth, if Marsha doesn't desire it, she simply won't seek it.

All I am doing is rewriting what you said except replacing the unidentified someone in your proposition with a name. Read it closely, you will notice that the sentence that is bolded is not the same proposition as the one that is not. Then you said:

what? no. Desires aren't chosen. The desire to know the truth then is not chosen. Therefore there's no freewill. If you thought I was saying someone is free I'm not.

So Marsha can desire something, she just doesn’t get to choose it. Someone can desire a fancy car but they cannot have one because they have no money. Is this what you are saying?

Faust 13: but it's the submitting part that i want women not to do.

While you may seem to have a very noble cause, you are asking women to submit to you right this very moment.

In business, when trying to close a deal between two parties, certain concessions must be made on both sides. Each becomes a little more dependent on one another, each loses a little individuality, each must submit to another's concession, but it is necessary because without it, no progress is to be made. Even if the deal is between two males, one or both must adopt certain feminine attributes in order to move forward. So why is being submissive considered altogether a negative trait as long as one is not ALWAYS so?

Faust 13: There is no free will (Thread: on the internal feminine battle in becoming a full person)

Faust 13: There's no such thing as random, it's all causation. (Thread: Free Will and the Definition of Experience)

Faust 13: Trust me, choosing to lead a path to enlightenment is not a conscious choice at all, it just happens, like a light in you, as if it was your destiny, your determined role in the universe. (Thread: Free Will and the Definition of Experience)

David Quinn: The masculine side values individuality, independence, domination, courage and will to consciousness, while the feminine side values connectedness with others, submission, freedom from pain and suffering, and will to unconsciousness. (Thread: on the internal feminine battle in becoming a full person)

If you believe in what you have stated above, then how are you not feminine? Enlightenment is valuing a connectedness to this Ultimate Reality, submission to cause and effect, freedom from pain and suffering (liberation from the cycle), and if you cannot make choices because you are determined by your own admission is unconscious. As David Quinn pointed out, it is a battle of life and death.

passthrough wrote:So Marsha can desire something, she just doesn’t get to choose it. Someone can desire a fancy car but they cannot have one because they have no money. Is this what you are saying?

yes... it's not hard to get what i was saying, and i don't see how the bolded statement was different than the others. All i'm saying is that all our desires are not chosen, and to know the truth is a desire.

passthrough,

me wanting women not to submit is not asking them to submit to me, it may seem so but it's not. it's like telling someone to "think for themselves" but then they're not thinking for themselves because they're listening to you, this is just a language thing. Also if i don't want them to do something, they're submitting anyways...


i don't know how one must adopt feminine attributes in business in order to move forwad, what do you mean by this? it certainly sounds queer to me. also, most women ARE always submissive, it's a sickening plague of ,"tee hee tee hee, i'll just live through everyone to have fun! tee hee tee hee!"


i'm submitting to cause and effect, not to other people. You can't have liberation from cause and effect, but that doesn't mean that you can't be more independant from other people.

yes we cannot make our own free choices, but we certainly can influence others through this cause and effect... some people tell me girls are like this mostly because of upbringing, i don't know because i've never raised one, yet everytime i see a little girl with her mother it seems peculiarly so, and it's sickening as the little girl is *barely* even realizing what's going on and the implications of what's happening....

passthrough wrote:Read it closely, you will notice that the sentence that is bolded is not the same proposition as the one that is not.

These things are not inconsistent. One does not choose one's desires because desires are caused. A desire is itself a cause for an upcoming action. Hence, desire is both cause and effect.

passthrough wrote:So Marsha can desire something, she just doesn’t get to choose it. Someone can desire a fancy car but they cannot have one because they have no money. Is this what you are saying?

Let's oversimplify this to make an easy to imagine grid.One could either desire a fancy car or not desire a fancy car. wanting a car is the first slot on the horizontal axis of the grid, not wanting a car is the second. One could have money for a fancy car or not have money for a fancy car. Having the money is the first slot on the vertical axis of the grid, and not having the money is the second. In the upper left hand corner, you have the intersection of wanting the car and having the money. Excluding extrinsic factors for simplicity's sake, we will say that money+desire=car. In the upper right hand corner you have the intersection of not wanting the car, but having the money. In that square, there is no car. In the lower left hand corner you have the desire for the car, but not enough money. Again, no car. In the lower right hand corner, you have neither the money nor the desire for the car.

So yes, you need both the desire and the ability to achieve the truth. Ability is directly related to the environment, and the environment may be a stumbling block - environment being anything form lack of stimulating resources to an unhelpful chemical composition in the brain. Therefore desire can help create ability - although desire isn't always enough. Reality has a lot more variables than what we put on our grid above.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:These things are not inconsistent. One does not choose one's desires because desires are caused. A desire is itself a cause for an upcoming action. Hence, desire is both cause and effect.

I am working on this one.

EI: Let's oversimplify this to make an easy to imagine grid.

Simple? *P scratches head and begins to draw graph and circle vertices*

So yes, you need both the desire and the ability to achieve the truth. Ability is directly related to the environment, and the environment may be a stumbling block - environment being anything form lack of stimulating resources to an unhelpful chemical composition in the brain. Therefore desire can help create ability - although desire isn't always enough. Reality has a lot more variables than what we put on our grid above.

Actually, I was trying to create an analogy of what I thought Faust was saying, however, he did not respond to the analogy, so...I'm turning my attention to the argument about Marsha which has me intrigued, do you agree with what David Quinn said about Marsha? What is your opinion on that particular issue Faust brought up? And while you're at it, do you think that being ALL masculine is something to strive for? Do you think it is from what perspective you look at things that determines whether you are or not? When answering this question, could you please take into consideration the following:

Faust 13: There is no free will (Thread: on the internal feminine battle in becoming a full person)

Faust 13: There's no such thing as random, it's all causation. (Thread: Free Will and the Definition of Experience)

Faust 13: Trust me, choosing to lead a path to enlightenment is not a conscious choice at all, it just happens, like a light in you, as if it was your destiny, your determined role in the universe. (Thread: Free Will and the Definition of Experience)

David Quinn: The masculine side values individuality, independence, domination, courage and will to consciousness, while the feminine side values connectedness with others, submission, freedom from pain and suffering, and will to unconsciousness. (Thread: on the internal feminine battle in becoming a full person)

P: If you believe in what you have stated above, then how are you not feminine? Enlightenment is valuing a connectedness to this Ultimate Reality, submission to cause and effect, freedom from pain and suffering (liberation from the [samsara]cycle), and if you cannot make choices because you are determined by your own admission is unconscious.

I'm going back to working on my answer for your consideration and further discussion.

passthrough wrote: do you agree with what David Quinn said about Marsha?

I don't have enough data for that kind of assessment. All I have is what she wrote in the newsletters and what made it over to this board after the ezboard crashed - and none of what I know of her is from personal interaction. There is only so much you can learn about a person from watching their interactions with others (a more complete way is to both interact with them yourself and observe them with others). David had longer and more direct data on her.

passthrough wrote: What is your opinion on that particular issue Faust brought up?

Oops - sorry Faust, I didn't see your question earlier.

Faust13 wrote:why do you value others more than yourself? i would try do it equally, or more yourself first. Yes the 'male provider' thing is a real comedy. so it is mostly upbringing that makes all these girls i encounter, socially dependant on men..

It would be wisest to value one's self equally to others, and I do try to do that, and I am improving. To me, that is part of the "internal battle" you were referring to - yet that is quite opposite to what the QRS teach that femininity is. The QRS Woman values herself more than she values any particular other (would trade a man in for one who makes more money, etc.). I believe the feminine is too self sacrificing, too willing to give up what she wants to see that others get what they want - which is getting interpreted by some as the feminine can't decide for themselves. That is also why women get extra mad when they gave up what they wanted so another could have what he wanted, and he still isn't happy.

passthrough wrote: And while you're at it, do you think that being ALL masculine is something to strive for?

Under my perceptions of what masculine and feminine are, no - being transcendent is what to strive for.

passthrough wrote: Do you think it is from what perspective you look at things that determines whether you are or not?

Yes.

passthrough wrote:When answering this question, could you please take into consideration the following:

Faust 13: There is no free will (Thread: on the internal feminine battle in becoming a full person)

Faust 13: There's no such thing as random, it's all causation. (Thread: Free Will and the Definition of Experience)

Faust 13: Trust me, choosing to lead a path to enlightenment is not a conscious choice at all, it just happens, like a light in you, as if it was your destiny, your determined role in the universe. (Thread: Free Will and the Definition of Experience)

David Quinn: The masculine side values individuality, independence, domination, courage and will to consciousness, while the feminine side values connectedness with others, submission, freedom from pain and suffering, and will to unconsciousness. (Thread: on the internal feminine battle in becoming a full person)

P: If you believe in what you have stated above, then how are you not feminine?

I value that which is appropriate to the situation. Sometimes independence is important, sometimes interdependence is important. There is a difference between courage and foolhardiness. If pain and suffering are interfering with the accomplishment of your logical goals, it makes sense to value freedom from pain and suffering.

Just because there is no free will does not mean there is no battle. It just means that the outcome of the battle is already determined. Think of a rope with one end tied to a crane and the other end tied to a semi. The crane battles to lift the truck while gravity battles to keep it down ("battle" just means conflict with opposing force). If the rope is strong enough, the crane wins. If the rope is not strong enough, gravity wins.

passthrough wrote: Enlightenment is valuing a connectedness to this Ultimate Reality, submission to cause and effect, freedom from pain and suffering (liberation from the [samsara]cycle), and if you cannot make choices because you are determined by your own admission is unconscious.

That sums it up pretty well.
.

Faust13 wrote:so elizabeth do you know any females that are like how David mentioned? I've seen a few around, but I just want to know how it feels to try and be "masculine". is it really hard for them? is it because they've been raised as children all their life?

There is a degree of difficulty which is different for each person, sometimes due to biological dispositions and sometimes due to how they were raised. If one is raised to be feminine and is biologically feminine, they will not be masculine and there would not be a battle because they are not trying. If one is biologically masculine and is raised with experiences that make one masculine, and again there would not be much battle because they would not have to try so hard, but they would be more masculine. The greater the mismatch between their biological nature and their experiences, the greater the battle would be.
.

Shahrazad wrote:This is a very insightful writing regarding the mind of the feminine-masculine woman. I can completely identify with what he is describing here. Thank you, Faust and David.

As much as I detest the "almost" condescending nature in which David Quinn wrote this, I have to agree that after thinking about it, he has identified it well, but the drama is a little much - then again, I don't know Marsha. However, I am not completely convinced, as he, that being wholly "masculine" is the golden egg.

What I would find interesting is the opposite side of the story for men and their ongoing battle with their feminine side...is there anyone here with the courage to discuss it? From what I've read, it appears that David Quinn is almost a monk [but what I read may be no more true about him than what he wrote of Marsha, since I do not know her], so it would seem that absent responsibility for anyone other than himself, a masculine view would be easier to achieve. From the outside looking in might afford one the most objective opinion. Those who have significant others and even yet a family with which they cohabitate might have some insight into the struggle between the two viewpoints from the male side.

As EI pointed out giving neither one more weight than the other but rather using each as reason dictates given a situation seems more apropos. I still believe that what differentiates the masculine and the feminine is perspective. However, it does seem true that until you understand and accept the dynamics of both views, you struggle - such is Quinn's life or death battle.

Freedom goes to the victor.

passthrough wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:This is a very insightful writing regarding the mind of the feminine-masculine woman. I can completely identify with what he is describing here. Thank you, Faust and David.

As much as I detest the "almost" condescending nature in which David Quinn wrote this, I have to agree that after thinking about it, he has identified it well, but the drama is a little much - then again, I don't know Marsha. However, I am not completely convinced, as he, that being wholly "masculine" is the golden egg.

What I would find interesting is the opposite side of the story for men and their ongoing battle with their feminine side...is there anyone here with the courage to discuss it? From what I've read, it appears that David Quinn is almost a monk [but what I read may be no more true about him than what he wrote of Marsha, since I do not know her], so it would seem that absent responsibility for anyone other than himself, a masculine view would be easier to achieve. From the outside looking in might afford one the most objective opinion. Those who have significant others and even yet a family with which they cohabitate might have some insight into the struggle between the two viewpoints from the male side.

As EI pointed out giving neither one more weight than the other but rather using each as reason dictates given a situation seems more apropos. I still believe that what differentiates the masculine and the feminine is perspective. However, it does seem true that until you understand and accept the dynamics of both views, you struggle - such is Quinn's life or death battle.

Freedom goes to the victor.

I don't accept the "feminine" perspective and I don't suffer from it at all. The "feminine" perspective that I detest the most is submission, meekness and apologeticness in order to get what one wants, as simple as that. Alot of women (and men) but more so women are cowardly and too apologetic, they apologize for everything, they're too non confrontational, they don't stand up for themselves or for the Truth, the important things to stand up for, they don't stand up for individuality, perhaps also many pathetic men, but I think it's more prevalent in women. This one time at campus I was in an elevator and a girl comes running up as the door was closing, and saying "sorry" because the door was closing on her.. i was like WTF. Did she even realize how absurd her apology was? no. she did it out of convention, she was raised that way, she sees other girls doing it. The whole submission to get acknowledgement thing really blows my mind, and you may think it's "cunning" and "smart" and "intelligent" but really it's not, and i'm not sure if it's 'feminine' but it's prevalent in women more.