GENIUS FORUMS

PS: If you have the capacity, you should well understand that that does not preclude my having properly considered the subject--quite the contrary, actually.

Laird,

DQ: But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

L: I know why you seek to provoke me. Do you?

No idea. You tell me.

Is it disrespectful to oneself to love another?

Only if you have a conscience.

Can you interpret my original post so that a woman can harbour masculinity?

Again, I have no idea what you mean here as you haven't spelt out what masculinity and femininity mean. I also don't know what you mean by "harbour" in this context.

-

The spirit of this post and what (little) I know of QRS from Dan's description at FP seem to be at odds. I see one side arguing about "femininity" in terms of actual females and the other using "femininity" as a heading describing a certain type of person.

Using femininity as a personality type doesn't necessarily mean hatred of women, in my opinion, but dislike of that subset of beliefs and actions which QRS equates to "femininity". They seem to equally dislike either a man or woman who is overly feminine.

.

Laird writes:

Pye, I do not believe that women are purely for men's use but that we are both for each other's progress. It is a woman's prerogative whether to explore and assert her masculine or feminine nature; I seek to explore what those natures might mean.

thankyou for the response; I seek to obliterate altogether the cul-de-sac that mas/fem thinking obsessively promotes and return any human quality to its potential in every human being; as it is. I find no real philosophic use to this distinction (even with every way in which I regard the Tao); to promote it as a thinking devise is to suggest that we be guided by significant social conditioning rather than transcending same. I find that most people use this manichaeanism as a wide dumping ground to range, wallowing circularly among the piles of their sexual baggage, and assume this to be seeing-something about it, when really there's no end of it to see, when looking this way.

One thing the site originators have accomplished is the destruction of the Woman myth. Where they err is in not continuing on and similarly dismantling mythic Man. Otherwise, this sort of purgatorial inability to transcend one's own anathema.


.

.

btw, my original meaning was that a thing concealed (misogyny) is more corrosive than a thing exposed, even and especially if it might be concealed from, and corroding within, ourselves.


.

Leyla Shen wrote:Laird wrote:

Pye, I do not believe that women are purely for men's use but that we are both for each other's progress. It is a woman's prerogative whether to explore and assert her masculine or feminine nature; I seek to explore what those natures might mean.

Is it a woman's prerogative? Why?

Should a woman not have the same choice afforded men?

Leyla Shen wrote:Why would you need to use a woman for your own progress when you are possessed of femininity yourself--or, do you consider yourself to be 100% masculine?

I hope that I would not use a woman - that I would instead accept an invitation (I have been less respectful in the past). I exhibit feminine aspects. [edited for honesty]

David Quinn wrote:

DQ: But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

L: I know why you seek to provoke me. Do you?

No idea. You tell me.

It might be nicer to get there indirectly. What's your first impression of a person who attacks another out of fear of being wrong?

David Quinn wrote:

Is it disrespectful to oneself to love another?

Only if you have a conscience.

A conscience is respectful of what is right. It is right that love emerges from equal respect for self and other.

David Quinn wrote:

Can you interpret my original post so that a woman can harbour masculinity?

Again, I have no idea what you mean here as you haven't spelt out what masculinity and femininity mean. I also don't know what you mean by "harbour" in this context.

I'm more interested in what you interpret than in what you know.

Leyla,

Being the pussywhipped dipstick you are, you would have missed that I have also argued against the QRS Woman.

Given your recent semi-coherent demeanor in other threads, I was wondering what had happened to the foul-mouthed, abusive, and irrational Leyla I thought I knew so well. Glad to see you're back in typical form. :)

David,

Nat: How much "masculinity" do biological females possess, on average?

David: Very little. Enough to be afraid of existing and that's about it.

Females are afraid of existing? Wow, that must be bothersome. I'll ask PyroSylph about it when she gets up, unless she stays in bed out of sheer fear of existing, that is.

Nat: And, for that matter, why aren't all "butch" lesbians enlightened or well on their way?

David: They aren't very masculine.

Oh? Maybe you'd like to suggest this to a few of them down at the pub sometime. You might get a different sort of lesson in "masculinity," lol...

Nagging is definitely a passive activity. It is an expression of helplessness, of not having any purpose, of not being self-reliant and centered.

Hmm. Go figure. I always thought it was an expression of hope that my lazy ass would get up from in front of this computer and go do whatever I was supposed to do a week ago.

David: A similar argument can be made for "lack of ambition." In many regards, women are very ambitious by nature. Social status and worldly achievement, for example, are areas in which women can be intensely driven. If you'd ever been commanded to "stop screwing around and get a job" by a woman, you'd know this. They can also be ambitious in areas traditionally reserved for men, as the success of women in business and public life shows.

Nat: This is only ambitious in the sense that hyenas bumping each out of the way in order to reach a piece of meat is ambitious.

Lovely. Your deep regard and appreciation for the fairer sex shines through once again, as you sit and make such comments by pounding a keyboard like an agitated chimpanzee.

Or maybe that was me. Oh, what's the difference? :)

Nat: I've given my view on this in an earlier post. I don't acknowledge this "core nature" of feminine consciousness you refer to, because in your mind, that core nature is "the devil."

David: No, I think it is for very different reasons than that.

You mean feminine consciousness is not the devil? Is it the Dark Side of the Force?

Pye, I also value human beings independently of their gender. I can't help but notice though that the bodies of men and women are formed differently. Is there not value in assessing how this might apply to their minds?

Pye wrote:One thing the site originators have accomplished is the destruction of the Woman myth. Where they err is in not continuing on and similarly dismantling mythic Man.

One problem that I could envisage with a myth is not so much that it exists, but that it is taken too seriously. Who is this mythic Man you speak of?

Pye wrote:Otherwise, this sort of purgatorial inability to transcend one's own anathema.

The meaning of this statement was lost on me although I liked its form.

Leyla,

PS: If you have the capacity, you should well understand that that does not preclude my having properly considered the subject--quite the contrary, actually.

Perhaps so. You certainly seem bright enough to have done so. Unfortunately, it seems apparent to me that at some point in your life, you suffered a horrible beekeeping accident which resulted in a number of vicious stinging insects becoming permanently trapped in your pants.

I think you should pursue a career in comedy, Nat.

You do like to play, don't you.

I shall afford you a symbolic smile as a gesture of my infinite good will that is so often not readily apparent in my demeanour.

:)

There.

:)

Well handled.

Laird:

Should a woman not have the same choice afforded men?

Well, I did not intend it to be a question of gender morality but one of philosophical import. Does a woman’s prerogative rely on your (a man’s) belief that women are not purely for men’s use or do you think there is something else to it in terms of masculine and feminine natures? (Careful, you might have to actually make a claim, here.)

I hope that I would not use a woman - that I would instead accept an invitation (I have been less respectful in the past). I exhibit feminine aspects. [edited for honesty]

Just so we’re really clear here, in terms of this mutual progress, are we talking about an invitation for sex or--an invitation to cook dinner, wash clothes, have sex, etc., because, if we are, why is an intimate relationship of 2 better than one in terms of one’s individual progress?

Leyla Shen wrote:Laird:

Should a woman not have the same choice afforded men?

Well, I did not intend it to be a question of gender morality but one of philosophical import. Does a woman’s prerogative rely on your (a man’s) belief that women are not purely for men’s use or do you think there is something else to it in terms of masculine and feminine natures?

I view it as part of human nature, which is divine.

Leyla Shen wrote:(Careful, you might have to actually make a claim, here.)

And how then might I have maintained unassailability?

Leyla Shen wrote:

I hope that I would not use a woman - that I would instead accept an invitation (I have been less respectful in the past). I exhibit feminine aspects. [edited for honesty]

Just so we’re really clear here, in terms of this mutual progress, are we talking about an invitation for sex or--an invitation to cook dinner, wash clothes, have sex, etc., because, if we are, why is an intimate relationship of 2 better than one in terms of one’s individual progress?

I'm talking about an invitation to share, whatever form that might take. Yes, it might be sex, dinner or washing. Because intimacy is pleasurable. In your reflection I see myself more clearly. The more intimate we are the more we contrast. The more we see contrast the more we realise that we are identical. These are my ideas, I'd like to explore their reality.

Laird,

DQ: But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

L: I know why you seek to provoke me. Do you?

DQ: No idea. You tell me.

L: It might be nicer to get there indirectly. What's your first impression of a person who attacks another out of fear of being wrong?

Do you think I am attacking you? Are you taking this discussion we are having about values and ideas as a personal attack upon yourself?

L: Is it disrespectful to oneself to love another?

DQ: Only if you have a conscience.

L: A conscience is respectful of what is right. It is right that love emerges from equal respect for self and other.

Well, I don't believe in self and other. So it kind of breaks down there.

In my view, a person has the beginnings of a conscience when he starts valuing truth above all else. And part of the truth about Nature is the lack of boundaries between things, that all things are seamlessly connected to one another. To enter into a love-relationship with another is to ignore the truth of Nature's lack of boundaries, and thus is a show of disrespect to one's conscience.

L: Can you interpret my original post so that a woman can harbour masculinity?

DQ: Again, I have no idea what you mean here as you haven't spelt out what masculinity and femininity mean. I also don't know what you mean by "harbour" in this context.

L: I'm more interested in what you interpret than in what you know.

Again, I can't interpret vaguely-defined concepts, other than to judge them to be vaguely-defined concepts.

But if you want my interpretation of your thinking on this issue in general, I judge you to be a lonely individual who is seeking connection with others and naturally thinks that emphasising the value of the feminine is a good way of going about this. The feminine is primarily about connecting and bonding with others. (This relates to the fear of existing that I mentioned to Unidian).

-

Nat,

Nat: How much "masculinity" do biological females possess, on average?

David: Very little. Enough to be afraid of existing and that's about it.

Nat: Females are afraid of existing? Wow, that must be bothersome. I'll ask PyroSylph about it when she gets up, unless she stays in bed out of sheer fear of existing, that is.

The trouble with discussing these matters with you is that your understanding of human psychology and egotism is not very deep. Just the way you are responding here shows that the mental shutters are already well and truly up. This relates to what I said previously about your fear of investigating these matters properly and possibly discovering uncomfortable truths therein.

Your understanding of human psychology is ... how, shall I put it? ..... very American.

One can see a woman's fear of existing as an individual in the way that she is a slave to fashion, the way she is almost 100% focused on intimacy and relationships, her fear of standing apart from the crowd and being judged negatively, her psychological sameness with respect to nearly all other women, her lack of valuing rational development, her lack of achievement in the realms of genius, and so on.

The forgetting of her self in the arms of another is her highest bliss.

Nat: And, for that matter, why aren't all "butch" lesbians enlightened or well on their way?

David: They aren't very masculine.

Nat: Oh? Maybe you'd like to suggest this to a few of them down at the pub sometime. You might get a different sort of lesson in "masculinity," lol...

I don't consider the macho male to be very masculine either. Instead, I see an awful lot of feminine insecurity inside him.

Nat: A similar argument can be made for "lack of ambition." In many regards, women are very ambitious by nature. Social status and worldly achievement, for example, are areas in which women can be intensely driven. If you'd ever been commanded to "stop screwing around and get a job" by a woman, you'd know this. They can also be ambitious in areas traditionally reserved for men, as the success of women in business and public life shows.

David: This is only ambitious in the sense that hyenas bumping each out of the way in order to reach a piece of meat is ambitious.

Nat: Lovely. Your deep regard and appreciation for the fairer sex shines through once again, as you sit and make such comments by pounding a keyboard like an agitated chimpanzee.

To me at least, women who imitate the male hyenas of our species show a distinct lack of ambition. Instead, I see a large amount of insecurity and blind desperateness driving them.

-

David:

Well, I don't believe in self and other. So it kind of breaks down there.

You may not believe in self and other, but you certainly make the distinction (why?):

In my view [whose view?], a person [meaningless without the distinction “self and other”] has the beginnings of a conscience [property of self, and--potentially, apparently--other] when he starts valuing truth above all else. And part of the truth about Nature is the lack of boundaries between things, that all things are seamlessly connected [a seamless connection requires postulating boundaries--making distinctions] to one another [as does “to one another”]. To enter into a love-relationship with another is to ignore the truth of Nature's lack of boundaries, and thus is a show of disrespect to one's conscience [a further testament to the existence of self and other].

I think what is actually lacking here is a proper exposition of ego. To resolve this by insisting there’s no such thing as self/other is contradictory and futile, in my view.

Again, the definition is: all things lack inherent existence. Hence, "seamless connection."

[Edit to flippen-well emphasise "existence" in a further attempt to curtail its magical disappearance, yet again, from the equation]

Laird wrote:

And how then might I have maintained unassailability?

If pleasure is paramount, you wouldn’t--unless your pleasure is truth. What then?

Are you not making claims for the taking coated in the syrup of temptation, Laird--such as the claim that there is something to be gained from intimacy between a man and a woman--a conception of self through a significant other?

David,

You don't do humor, do you?

Leyla Shen wrote:I think what is actually lacking here is a proper exposition of ego.

While there are many definitions of ego, I read this one recently and thought it succinctly conveyed the concept:

ego - “the habitual notion of possession”

David Quinn wrote:DQ: But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

L: I know why you seek to provoke me. Do you?

DQ: No idea. You tell me.

L: It might be nicer to get there indirectly. What's your first impression of a person who attacks another out of fear of being wrong?

DQ: Do you think I am attacking you?

I suggest provocation rather than attack. I'm questioning why you might seek that I attack you. Let me try approaching at it like this: how do you feel when you are charged with being wrong, and do you lash out in fear of its pain?

L: Is it disrespectful to oneself to love another?

DQ: Only if you have a conscience.

L: A conscience is respectful of what is right. It is right that love emerges from equal respect for self and other.

DQ: Well, I don't believe in self and other.

What is a more useful belief than that of self and of its relationship to the divine?

In my view, a person has the beginnings of a conscience when he starts valuing truth above all else.

I would substitute in that sentence honesty for truth.

And part of the truth about Nature is the lack of boundaries between things, that all things are seamlessly connected to one another. To enter into a love-relationship with another is to ignore the truth of Nature's lack of boundaries, and thus is a show of disrespect to one's conscience.

Life is an act of love. To live is to be loved. To love is to respect one's conscience. Conscience exists outside of boundaries.

I've come to show you another way. Not better, but different. We are all the same.

L: Can you interpret my original post so that a woman can harbour masculinity?

DQ: Again, I have no idea what you mean here as you haven't spelt out what masculinity and femininity mean. I also don't know what you mean by "harbour" in this context.

L: I'm more interested in what you interpret than in what you know.

DQ: Again, I can't interpret vaguely-defined concepts, other than to judge them to be vaguely-defined concepts.

You can interpret and then express. To express is to love. To love is to share and develop your interpretation.

David Quinn wrote:But if you want my interpretation of your thinking on this issue in general

David I do.

David Quinn wrote:I judge you to be a lonely individual

Who is not lonely in the middle of a crowd? He who knows God.

David Quinn wrote:who is seeking connection with others

I am, but only to the extent that I am currently capable, that is to say on this forum.

David Quinn wrote:and naturally thinks that emphasising the value of the feminine is a good way of going about this. The feminine is primarily about connecting and bonding with others. (This relates to the fear of existing that I mentioned to Unidian).

What if it related to the joy of existing?

--
What is it at which you grasp? Hold it, and it is something else.

Leyla Shen wrote:Laird wrote:

And how then might I have maintained unassailability?

If pleasure is paramount, you wouldn’t--unless your pleasure is truth. What then?

You might mean, what is truth? Truth is the search for God. There is no such thing as truth. God exists.

Leyla Shen wrote:Are you not making claims for the taking coated in the syrup of temptation, Laird--such as the claim that there is something to be gained from intimacy between a man and a woman--a conception of self through a significant other?

Temptation is desire through a sour lens. Desire is a less noble way of saying will. All things are noble. Sour is in the attitude. God's will is accomplished. [edited to add final sentence]

.

Leyla posits:

I think what is actually lacking here is a proper exposition of ego.

I might not have the whole exposition for you, but I can offer its most efficacious definition:
ego = one's sense of self.
Period.

clyde offers:

ego - “the habitual notion of possession”

and this definition, like so many, begins with a moral pejorative embedded in its meaning.

It has only ever been a type of ego put forth in any given enlightenment scheme, and a whole host of other types of egos that are rejected for the process; but in no scheme does one's ego - one's sense of self - go away.

I've rather thought the enlightenment project -- and perhaps even the human excellence project as well - to be an expansion of one's sense of self - the taking on of more and more awareness of more and more that is (in theory) not-you, but becomes you, and it, but your taking it on. dilution and air around the inwardly-held center (it can get stinky in all close quarters), and spreading . . . one's sense of self expanding outward into awareness that can be gained on whatever human frequency we possess to pick it up.

No, the ego never 'goes away' nor is it inherently flawed or evil. One's sense of self never deserts them. but many senses of self could stand to be expanded away from the compost smell of their centers.


.

David:

By contrast, a person with feminine consciousness is ignorant simply because of a lack of mental capacity to become wise.

Now all people are a mixture of masculinity and femininity, although not in equal amounts, and so all people have this lack of mental capacity inside them to some extent. So the whole issue turns on whether a person possesses enough masculine consciousness to not only break away from the constant pull of his feminine consciousness, but also to tackle the mental blocks and fears which hinder him.

While I agree with your insight into the battles that ensue within an individual between their masculine and feminine nature, a question that remains in my mind is why the masculine is, by necessity, preferred?

You appreciate Jesus Christ and Buddhism as you have a link replete with sayings attributed to them. So, I have to ask how do you reconcile this strive for wisdom with the virtues of love, being the greatest commandment, and living a virtuous life? Can one be unwise and yet love and live a life of virtue?

In my view, a person has the beginnings of a conscience when he starts valuing truth above all else. And part of the truth about Nature is the lack of boundaries between things, that all things are seamlessly connected to one another. To enter into a love-relationship with another is to ignore the truth of Nature's lack of boundaries, and thus is a show of disrespect to one's conscience.

Is the danger in lack of wisdom being able to fully appreciate what is illusory from reality? Is there not also a danger of becoming so wise that one alienates themselves from those whom they are to love? Do you think that love should be sacrificed in order to gain such wisdom? The definition of love will be a sticky point, to be sure, but it is not a love like an attachment to an object or person but that of a love for human dignity and respect as fellow beings.

With all these things being said, how do you understand the nature of Christ to be?